Project Management
Providers using this tag (199)
Ranked by API Evangelist rating — Exemplar and Strong are expanded by default.
Exemplar 16 Complete, well-documented, and agent-ready
Strong 19 Solid coverage with minor gaps
Developing 46 Usable, with meaningful gaps to close
Thin 44 Limited public surface area
Emerging 49 Early or largely undocumented
Minimal 22 Almost no public developer surface
Unrated 3 Not yet scored
APIs with this tag (56)
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 →
Exemplar 9 Complete, well-documented, and agent-ready
Strong 9 Solid coverage with minor gaps
Developing 18 Usable, with meaningful gaps to close
Thin 8 Limited public surface area
Emerging 12 Early or largely undocumented
Companies reaching this through an API (23)
These companies publish an API, specification or operation carrying “Project Management” 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
199 providers carry this tag directly, and 202 counting the 2 narrower tags below — 3 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 |
|---|---|
| Construction and AEC | 54% |
Cohort brief
Auto-generatedThe 187 providers in the APIs.io catalog tagged Project Management, 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 | 46.4 | 30 | +16.4 | 187 |
| Contract Quality | 30.2 | 18.6 | +11.6 | 187 |
| Operational Transparency | 23.9 | 13.2 | +10.7 | 187 |
| Developer Ergonomics | 34.7 | 24.5 | +10.2 | 187 |
| Discoverability | 63.8 | 59.1 | +4.7 | 187 |
| Contract Governance | 12.8 | 9.7 | +3.1 | 187 |
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) | 26% | 18% | +8 |
| MCP server (first-party) | 25% | 16% | +9 |
| Agent Skills | 0% | 0% | 0 |
| OAuth scopes | 27% | 13% | +14 |
| Security | 98% | 99% | -1 |
| Arazzo workflows | 3% | 1% | +2 |
| Governance rules | 53% | 36% | +17 |
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 Jira 82.4
- 2 Azure DevOps 81.9
- 3 Quickbase 80.5
- 4 Trello 74.1
- 5 Clickup 72.6
- 6 Asana 72.5
- 7 Shortcut Software 71.4
- 8 Intuit 70.8
- 9 CompanyCam 70.3
- 10 Adobe Workfront 70.2
- 1 Taskfolk 69.1
- 2 Jira 65.7
- 3 Mavenlink 61.7
- 4 Adobe Workfront 59.2
- 5 Clockodo 58.8
- 6 Annsa 58.3
- 7 Clickup 57
- 8 BuildWorkPro 57
- 9 Shortcut Software 54.6
- 10 Asana 53.7
Coverage caveat. 136 of 187 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 14 November 2026, across 41591 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.