Text-to-Speech
Text To SpeechText to SpeechText-To-SpeechText-to-SpeechText-to-speechTextToSpeechtext to speechtextToSpeech
Providers using this tag (66)
Ranked by API Evangelist rating — Exemplar and Strong are expanded by default.
Exemplar 1 Complete, well-documented, and agent-ready
Strong 4 Solid coverage with minor gaps
Developing 32 Usable, with meaningful gaps to close
Thin 18 Limited public surface area
Emerging 10 Early or largely undocumented
Minimal 1 Almost no public developer surface
APIs with this tag (46)
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 3 Solid coverage with minor gaps
Developing 21 Usable, with meaningful gaps to close
Thin 16 Limited public surface area
Emerging 5 Early or largely undocumented
Companies reaching this through an API (8)
These companies publish an API, specification or operation carrying “Text-to-Speech” 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
Related tags
Where this tag comes from
Cohort brief
Auto-generatedThe 66 providers in the APIs.io catalog tagged Text-to-Speech, 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 | 42.5 | 19.8 | +22.7 | 66 |
| Developer Ergonomics | 46.1 | 23.4 | +22.7 | 66 |
| Access Clarity | 42.6 | 26.5 | +16.1 | 66 |
| Operational Transparency | 27.5 | 14 | +13.5 | 66 |
| Discoverability | 71.9 | 61.2 | +10.7 | 66 |
| Contract Governance | 7.9 | 6.4 | +1.5 | 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) | 17% | 10% | +7 |
| MCP server (first-party) | 23% | 13% | +10 |
| Agent Skills | 0% | 0% | 0 |
| OAuth scopes | 5% | 11% | -6 |
| Security | 100% | 97% | +3 |
| Arazzo workflows | 8% | 2% | +6 |
| Governance rules | 24% | 14% | +10 |
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 Vapi 73.6
- 2 Captions 65.9
- 3 Inworld AI 65.1
- 4 Amazon Polly 60.1
- 5 Bluma 56.8
- 6 SLNG 53.7
- 7 Speechmatics 50.6
- 8 Speko 50.3
- 9 Deepdub 49.3
- 10 ELBO AI, INC 49.3
- 1 Sarj AI Developer API 62.9
- 2 AutoContent API 48
- 3 Speko 44.4
- 4 ELBO AI, INC 43.9
- 5 useapi.net 39
- 6 Vapi 36.5
- 7 Actionpower 35.8
- 8 HeyGen 35.2
- 9 Bluma 34.7
- 10 Deepdub 33.2
Work with this as data
Every tag here is available over the APIs.io API and to AI agents over MCP.