Sanctions Screening
Providers using this tag (30)
Ranked by API Evangelist rating — Exemplar and Strong are expanded by default.
Exemplar 2 Complete, well-documented, and agent-ready
Strong 5 Solid coverage with minor gaps
Developing 9 Usable, with meaningful gaps to close
Thin 7 Limited public surface area
Emerging 3 Early or largely undocumented
Minimal 4 Almost no public developer surface
APIs with this tag (10)
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 →
Developing 6 Usable, with meaningful gaps to close
Thin 1 Limited public surface area
Emerging 2 Early or largely undocumented
Minimal 1 Almost no public developer surface
Companies reaching this through an API (6)
These companies publish an API, specification or operation carrying “Sanctions Screening” 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 30 providers in the APIs.io catalog tagged Sanctions Screening, 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 | 41.8 | 23.2 | +18.6 | 30 |
| Access Clarity | 41.9 | 26.5 | +15.4 | 30 |
| Contract Quality | 32.7 | 17.6 | +15.1 | 30 |
| Operational Transparency | 28.2 | 13.7 | +14.5 | 30 |
| Discoverability | 68.6 | 58.1 | +10.5 | 30 |
| Contract Governance | 10.8 | 6.3 | +4.5 | 30 |
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) | 37% | 14% | +23 |
| MCP server (first-party) | 40% | 12% | +28 |
| Agent Skills | 0% | 0% | 0 |
| OAuth scopes | 20% | 11% | +9 |
| Security | 97% | 98% | -1 |
| Arazzo workflows | 3% | 2% | +1 |
| Governance rules | 3% | 14% | -11 |
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 FeedOracle Technologies 69.5
- 2 OpenSanctions 67.9
- 3 ComplyAdvantage 64.7
- 4 iDenfy 62.7
- 5 ZenLedger 56.2
- 6 Sirenic 56
- 7 CipherOwl 54.8
- 8 Enigma Analytics 51.9
- 9 Dotfile 51.1
- 10 Macaroon Network 50.4
- 1 Sirenic 70.9
- 2 FeedOracle Technologies 62.8
- 3 ComplyAdvantage 47.3
- 4 Macaroon Network 45.4
- 5 iDenfy 41.5
- 6 Salv 41.5
- 7 Enigma Analytics 36.3
- 8 Aclid 35.1
- 9 Hergert Synthora 33.8
- 10 ARAKEL Machine Evidence Network 31.4
Coverage caveat. 22 of 30 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.