Third-Party Risk Management
Third-Party RiskVendor Risk ManagementTPRMThird-Party Risk Management
Providers using this tag (27)
Ranked by API Evangelist rating — Exemplar and Strong are expanded by default.
Developing 10 Usable, with meaningful gaps to close
Thin 3 Limited public surface area
Emerging 8 Early or largely undocumented
Minimal 4 Almost no public developer surface
APIs with this tag (1)
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 1 Usable, with meaningful gaps to close
Companies reaching this through an API (1)
These companies publish an API, specification or operation carrying “Third-Party Risk Management” 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 27 providers in the APIs.io catalog tagged Third-Party Risk Management, 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 | 38 | 26.5 | +11.5 | 27 |
| Operational Transparency | 24.4 | 13.7 | +10.7 | 27 |
| Developer Ergonomics | 31.2 | 23.2 | +8 | 27 |
| Discoverability | 63.9 | 58.1 | +5.8 | 27 |
| Contract Quality | 21.2 | 17.6 | +3.6 | 27 |
| Contract Governance | 5.2 | 6.3 | -1.1 | 27 |
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) | 30% | 14% | +16 |
| MCP server (first-party) | 30% | 12% | +18 |
| Agent Skills | 0% | 0% | 0 |
| OAuth scopes | 11% | 11% | 0 |
| Security | 100% | 98% | +2 |
| Arazzo workflows | 0% | 2% | -2 |
| Governance rules | 0% | 14% | -14 |
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 OneTrust 72.7
- 2 Drata 70.2
- 3 UpGuard 51.7
- 4 HackNotice 51.2
- 5 MINE 50.6
- 6 VISO Trust 50.2
- 7 Venminder (Digital Comply) 45.5
- 8 SecurityScorecard 43.8
- 9 SAFE Security 41
- 10 VISO Trust (Protecht) 40
- 1 OneTrust 55.9
- 2 Drata 48.6
- 3 MINE 35.4
- 4 HackNotice 34.9
- 5 Venminder (Digital Comply) 30.4
- 6 UpGuard 27.5
- 7 Interos 26.4
- 8 SecurityScorecard 26.1
- 9 VISO Trust 23.2
- 10 VISO Trust (Protecht) 23.2
Coverage caveat. 26 of 27 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.