Quantum Computing
Providers using this tag (53)
Ranked by API Evangelist rating — Exemplar and Strong are expanded by default.
Exemplar 1 Complete, well-documented, and agent-ready
Strong 4 Solid coverage with minor gaps
Developing 9 Usable, with meaningful gaps to close
Thin 6 Limited public surface area
Emerging 13 Early or largely undocumented
APIs with this tag (44)
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 12 Solid coverage with minor gaps
Developing 4 Usable, with meaningful gaps to close
Thin 2 Limited public surface area
Emerging 26 Early or largely undocumented
Score breakdown
Related tags
Where this tag comes from
Cohort brief
Auto-generatedThe 49 providers in the APIs.io catalog tagged Quantum Computing, scored on the Kin Score. Every figure below is computed from the catalog — nothing here is written.
| Facet | This cohort | Catalog | Difference | Scored |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Developer Ergonomics | 32.8 | 23.2 | +9.6 | 49 |
| Operational Transparency | 15.8 | 13.7 | +2.1 | 49 |
| Discoverability | 59.5 | 58.1 | +1.4 | 49 |
| Access Clarity | 27.2 | 26.5 | +0.7 | 49 |
| Contract Quality | 17.4 | 17.6 | -0.2 | 49 |
| Contract Governance | 3.9 | 6.3 | -2.4 | 49 |
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) | 0% | 14% | -14 |
| MCP server (first-party) | 0% | 12% | -12 |
| Agent Skills | 0% | 0% | 0 |
| OAuth scopes | 8% | 11% | -3 |
| Security | 100% | 98% | +2 |
| Arazzo workflows | 8% | 2% | +6 |
| Governance rules | 14% | 14% | 0 |
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 Microsoft Azure Quantum 68.1
- 2 IBM Quantum 64.3
- 3 D-Wave 61.2
- 4 Google Quantum AI 57.7
- 5 IonQ 56.7
- 6 Rigetti Computing 53.3
- 7 QC Ware 52.9
- 8 Amazon Braket 49.1
- 9 Multiverse Computing 47.9
- 10 Alice Bob 47.7
- 1 IBM Quantum 29.8
- 2 Rigetti Computing 29.3
- 3 Rigetti Computing 29
- 4 Rigetti & Co 29
- 5 Quandela 28.2
- 6 Google Quantum AI 27.8
- 7 Multiverse Computing 27.6
- 8 D-Wave 27.3
- 9 IonQ 26.9
- 10 QC Ware 25.9
Coverage caveat. 42 of 49 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 5 October 2026, across 29093 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.