RPA
Robotic Process AutomationRPA
Providers using this tag (28)
Ranked by API Evangelist rating — Exemplar and Strong are expanded by default.
Exemplar 4 Complete, well-documented, and agent-ready
Strong 3 Solid coverage with minor gaps
Developing 6 Usable, with meaningful gaps to close
Thin 4 Limited public surface area
Emerging 3 Early or largely undocumented
Minimal 8 Almost no public developer surface
APIs with this tag (5)
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 1 Complete, well-documented, and agent-ready
Strong 2 Solid coverage with minor gaps
Thin 2 Limited public surface area
Companies reaching this through an API (2)
These companies publish an API, specification or operation carrying “RPA” 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
Related tags
Where this tag comes from
Cohort brief
Auto-generatedThe 28 providers in the APIs.io catalog tagged RPA, 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 | 40.4 | 25 | +15.4 | 28 |
| Developer Ergonomics | 36 | 22.1 | +13.9 | 28 |
| Contract Quality | 31.5 | 18.2 | +13.3 | 28 |
| Operational Transparency | 24.1 | 12.4 | +11.7 | 28 |
| Contract Governance | 16.8 | 9.4 | +7.4 | 28 |
| Discoverability | 61.4 | 57.9 | +3.5 | 28 |
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) | 36% | 16% | +20 |
| MCP server (first-party) | 32% | 14% | +18 |
| Agent Skills | 0% | 0% | 0 |
| OAuth scopes | 14% | 13% | +1 |
| Security | 100% | 98% | +2 |
| Arazzo workflows | 11% | 2% | +9 |
| Governance rules | 54% | 35% | +19 |
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 Automation Anywhere 74.6
- 2 UiPath 72.9
- 3 Appian 72.2
- 4 PixieBrix 66.6
- 5 Microsoft Power Automate 64.2
- 6 Coasty 63.4
- 7 Minicor 56.8
- 8 ABBYY 53.8
- 9 Runautomat 53.6
- 10 Blue Prism 52.3
- 1 Automation Anywhere 51.6
- 2 Coasty 47
- 3 ABBYY 45.9
- 4 Microsoft Power Automate 34.2
- 5 glasswarp-com 32.9
- 6 Blue Prism 30.8
- 7 Minicor 29.9
- 8 UiPath 29.7
- 9 PixieBrix 29.4
- 10 AskUI 28.3
Coverage caveat. 19 of 28 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.