RegTech
Regulatory TechnologyRegTech
Providers using this tag (68)
Ranked by API Evangelist rating — Exemplar and Strong are expanded by default.
Exemplar 3 Complete, well-documented, and agent-ready
Strong 9 Solid coverage with minor gaps
Developing 10 Usable, with meaningful gaps to close
Thin 9 Limited public surface area
Emerging 25 Early or largely undocumented
Minimal 12 Almost no public developer surface
APIs with this tag (1)
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 →
Emerging 1 Early or largely undocumented
Score breakdown
Where this tag sits
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 |
|---|---|
| GLEIF LEI Issuers (Legal Entity Identifier infrastructure) | 20% |
Cohort brief
Auto-generatedThe 66 providers in the APIs.io catalog tagged RegTech, 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 | 34.7 | 25 | +9.7 | 66 |
| Operational Transparency | 18.7 | 12.4 | +6.3 | 66 |
| Developer Ergonomics | 28.4 | 22.1 | +6.3 | 66 |
| Contract Quality | 22.3 | 18.2 | +4.1 | 66 |
| Discoverability | 61.9 | 57.9 | +4 | 66 |
| Contract Governance | 12.9 | 9.4 | +3.5 | 66 |
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) | 20% | 16% | +4 |
| MCP server (first-party) | 21% | 14% | +7 |
| Agent Skills | 0% | 0% | 0 |
| OAuth scopes | 12% | 13% | -1 |
| Security | 100% | 98% | +2 |
| Arazzo workflows | 2% | 2% | 0 |
| Governance rules | 35% | 35% | 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 Solidus Labs 71.5
- 2 ComplyAdvantage 68.6
- 3 iDenfy 68.2
- 4 Fenergo 64.3
- 5 FeedOracle Technologies 62.2
- 6 Sikoia 60.1
- 7 ZenLedger 60
- 8 Dotfile 57.1
- 9 Credo AI 56.7
- 10 Spektr 56.2
- 1 FeedOracle Technologies 67.4
- 2 Green Check Verified 49.7
- 3 ComplyAdvantage 49.1
- 4 OpenLaws 46.4
- 5 Strise 45.5
- 6 Fenergo 44
- 7 iDenfy 43.6
- 8 TrustArc 40.3
- 9 Salv 40.3
- 10 Spektr 39.6
Coverage caveat. 60 of 66 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 7 November 2026, across 38912 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.