Shipping
Providers using this tag (210)
Ranked by API Evangelist rating — Exemplar and Strong are expanded by default.
Exemplar 5 Complete, well-documented, and agent-ready
Strong 12 Solid coverage with minor gaps
Developing 47 Usable, with meaningful gaps to close
Thin 55 Limited public surface area
Emerging 45 Early or largely undocumented
Minimal 46 Almost no public developer surface
APIs with this tag (132)
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 17 Complete, well-documented, and agent-ready
Strong 11 Solid coverage with minor gaps
Developing 14 Usable, with meaningful gaps to close
Thin 56 Limited public surface area
Emerging 28 Early or largely undocumented
Minimal 6 Almost no public developer surface
Companies reaching this through an API (30)
These companies publish an API, specification or operation carrying “Shipping” 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
210 providers carry this tag directly, and 216 counting the 2 narrower tags below — 6 more to reach.
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 |
|---|---|
| Shipping and Logistics | 76% |
| Maritime Logistics (ocean shipping, eBL, ports) | 47% |
Cohort brief
Auto-generatedThe 204 providers in the APIs.io catalog tagged Shipping, 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 | 32.5 | 17.2 | +15.3 | 204 |
| Developer Ergonomics | 32.5 | 23.2 | +9.3 | 204 |
| Discoverability | 65.5 | 57.9 | +7.6 | 204 |
| Operational Transparency | 16.9 | 13 | +3.9 | 204 |
| Contract Governance | 8.4 | 6.5 | +1.9 | 204 |
| Access Clarity | 25.5 | 23.9 | +1.6 | 204 |
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) | 12% | 13% | -1 |
| MCP server (first-party) | 12% | 12% | 0 |
| Agent Skills | 0% | 0% | 0 |
| OAuth scopes | 14% | 11% | +3 |
| Security | 99% | 98% | +1 |
| Arazzo workflows | 3% | 2% | +1 |
| Governance rules | 22% | 16% | +6 |
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 SMKlog 95.3
- 2 AfterShip 82.6
- 3 Virto Commerce 69.9
- 4 Sendcloud 66.7
- 5 SignSealShip Partner API 66.6
- 6 Australia Post 61.7
- 7 Nash 61.5
- 8 La Poste Groupe 60.5
- 9 MVMNT 60.1
- 10 MyCarrier 57.8
- 1 AfterShip 60.4
- 2 LoadOptimizer.ai 57.3
- 3 SMKlog 55.1
- 4 OK Capsule 51.9
- 5 Kargo 50.9
- 6 Boxc 49
- 7 Sendcloud 48.8
- 8 Wallapop 47.4
- 9 ShipStation 46.9
- 10 Terminal49 45.8
Coverage caveat. 171 of 204 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 24 October 2026, across 31984 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.