SAML
SAMLsaml
Providers using this tag (50)
Ranked by API Evangelist rating — Exemplar and Strong are expanded by default.
Exemplar 1 Complete, well-documented, and agent-ready
Strong 7 Solid coverage with minor gaps
Developing 11 Usable, with meaningful gaps to close
Thin 24 Limited public surface area
Emerging 7 Early or largely undocumented
APIs with this tag (301)
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 4 Complete, well-documented, and agent-ready
Strong 14 Solid coverage with minor gaps
Developing 111 Usable, with meaningful gaps to close
Thin 142 Limited public surface area
Emerging 30 Early or largely undocumented
Companies reaching this through an API (216)
These companies publish an API, specification or operation carrying “SAML” 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.
Show all 216 companies ↓
Score breakdown
Related tags
Where this tag comes from
Cohort brief
Auto-generatedThe 50 providers in the APIs.io catalog tagged SAML, scored on the Kin Score. Every figure below is computed from the catalog — nothing here is written.
| Facet | This cohort | Catalog | Difference | Scored |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Contract Quality | 37 | 19.8 | +17.2 | 50 |
| Access Clarity | 40.4 | 26.5 | +13.9 | 50 |
| Operational Transparency | 27.1 | 14 | +13.1 | 50 |
| Developer Ergonomics | 35.6 | 23.4 | +12.2 | 50 |
| Contract Governance | 15.5 | 6.4 | +9.1 | 50 |
| Discoverability | 69.7 | 61.2 | +8.5 | 50 |
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) | 8% | 10% | -2 |
| MCP server (first-party) | 10% | 13% | -3 |
| Agent Skills | 0% | 0% | 0 |
| OAuth scopes | 28% | 11% | +17 |
| Security | 100% | 97% | +3 |
| Arazzo workflows | 2% | 2% | 0 |
| Governance rules | 46% | 14% | +32 |
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 Authentik 69.1
- 2 Clerk 65.8
- 3 Amazon Cognito 63.9
- 4 Auth0 60.8
- 5 Microsoft Azure Active Directory 57.3
- 6 Descope 56.4
- 7 TU Wien 56.2
- 8 Login.gov 54.8
- 9 WorkOS 52.6
- 10 Seoul National University 50.7
- 1 Clerk 46.3
- 2 WorkOS 43.5
- 3 Auth0 37.9
- 4 Queensland University of Technology 37.3
- 5 ID.me 34.4
- 6 Massey University 33.3
- 7 Shanghai Jiao Tong University 32.8
- 8 Microsoft Azure Active Directory 32.4
- 9 University of Waikato 31.3
- 10 Amazon Cognito 30.6
Work with this as data
Every tag here is available over the APIs.io API and to AI agents over MCP.