Procurement
Providers using this tag (238)
Ranked by API Evangelist rating — Exemplar and Strong are expanded by default.
Strong 5 Solid coverage with minor gaps
Developing 30 Usable, with meaningful gaps to close
Thin 36 Limited public surface area
Emerging 93 Early or largely undocumented
Minimal 74 Almost no public developer surface
APIs with this tag (86)
Ranked by the provider's API Evangelist rating — the Kin Score is scored per provider, not per API, so every API of a provider shares its band. How the rating works →
Strong 4 Solid coverage with minor gaps
Developing 38 Usable, with meaningful gaps to close
Thin 17 Limited public surface area
Emerging 20 Early or largely undocumented
Minimal 7 Almost no public developer surface
Companies reaching this through an API (22)
These companies publish an API, specification or operation carrying “Procurement” but do not classify their business under it. Listed unranked and kept out of the count above, because one tagged operation is not a statement about what a company does.
Score breakdown
Where this tag sits
238 providers carry this tag directly, and 263 counting the 13 narrower tags below — 25 more to reach.
Related tags
Where this tag comes from
Markets provisional
Kin Score markets whose measured providers carry this tag. Share is the fraction of the market's measured providers that carry it — it describes the market, not this tag.
| Market | Share of the market's providers |
|---|---|
| Procurement and B2B Buying (source-to-pay suites, spend management) | 77% |
Cohort brief
Auto-generatedThe 229 providers in the APIs.io catalog tagged Procurement, scored on the Kin Score. Every figure below is computed from the catalog — nothing here is written.
| Facet | This cohort | Catalog | Difference | Scored |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Access Clarity | 27.1 | 23.9 | +3.2 | 229 |
| Discoverability | 57.9 | 57.9 | 0 | 229 |
| Contract Governance | 6.4 | 6.5 | -0.1 | 229 |
| Operational Transparency | 11.2 | 13 | -1.8 | 229 |
| Contract Quality | 15 | 17.2 | -2.2 | 229 |
| Developer Ergonomics | 17.6 | 23.2 | -5.6 | 229 |
A facet is averaged over the members that carry it, not over the whole cohort — the “Scored” column is that count. Averaging an absent facet as zero would score our own coverage gaps as the providers’ posture.
| Artifact | This cohort | Catalog | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| MCP server (any) | 13% | 13% | 0 |
| MCP server (first-party) | 13% | 12% | +1 |
| Agent Skills | 0% | 0% | 0 |
| OAuth scopes | 12% | 11% | +1 |
| Security | 99% | 98% | +1 |
| Arazzo workflows | 1% | 2% | -1 |
| Governance rules | 12% | 16% | -4 |
mcp_pct counts any mcp/ artifact including ones API Evangelist derived from the provider OpenAPI; mcp_first_party_pct counts only servers the provider publishes. Prefer the latter.
- 1 Tradeshift 64.8
- 2 Ottimate 60
- 3 Spendesk 59.8
- 4 General Services Administration 56.9
- 5 Malt 55.3
- 6 Stotles 54.1
- 7 Avnet 53.9
- 8 Starbridge 53.4
- 9 Proactis 52.5
- 10 Agiloft 51.8
- 1 Starbridge 61.6
- 2 OpenGov 61.3
- 3 Stotles 60.4
- 4 Govly 58.9
- 5 Sybilion 55.6
- 6 Matchory 49.3
- 7 Tradeshift 49.1
- 8 Spendesk 48.9
- 9 NationGraph 44.7
- 10 Apicbase 43.9
Coverage caveat. 211 of 229 scored members had under half their catalog-attributable points satisfied at all (catalog_earned / catalog_max < 0.5). They are INCLUDED in the mean above. A large share here means the cohort mean is partly a measurement of how far our enrichment reached, not only of how these providers publish.Generated from the catalog build of 24 October 2026, across 31984 providers, using the same computation served by the APIs.io cohort API. Briefs are published for rosters of 5 or more scored providers; below that a distribution is not meaningful.
Work with this as data
Every tag here is available over the APIs.io API and to AI agents over MCP.