Utilities
Providers using this tag (216)
Ranked by API Evangelist rating — Exemplar and Strong are expanded by default.
Exemplar 1 Complete, well-documented, and agent-ready
Strong 14 Solid coverage with minor gaps
Developing 31 Usable, with meaningful gaps to close
Thin 31 Limited public surface area
Emerging 66 Early or largely undocumented
Minimal 73 Almost no public developer surface
APIs with this tag (87)
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 5 Complete, well-documented, and agent-ready
Strong 14 Solid coverage with minor gaps
Developing 24 Usable, with meaningful gaps to close
Thin 22 Limited public surface area
Emerging 16 Early or largely undocumented
Minimal 6 Almost no public developer surface
Companies reaching this through an API (71)
These companies publish an API, specification or operation carrying “Utilities” 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 71 companies ↓
Score breakdown
Where this tag sits
216 providers carry this tag directly, and 243 counting the 4 narrower tags below — 27 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.
Cohort brief
Auto-generatedThe 208 providers in the APIs.io catalog tagged Utilities, scored on the Kin Score. Every figure below is computed from the catalog — nothing here is written.
| Facet | This cohort | Catalog | Difference | Scored |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Operational Transparency | 14.9 | 13 | +1.9 | 208 |
| Developer Ergonomics | 25 | 23.2 | +1.8 | 208 |
| Contract Governance | 7.7 | 6.5 | +1.2 | 208 |
| Discoverability | 58.4 | 57.9 | +0.5 | 208 |
| Access Clarity | 23.5 | 23.9 | -0.4 | 208 |
| Contract Quality | 15.7 | 17.2 | -1.5 | 208 |
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) | 2% | 13% | -11 |
| MCP server (first-party) | 2% | 12% | -10 |
| Agent Skills | 0% | 0% | 0 |
| OAuth scopes | 18% | 11% | +7 |
| Security | 100% | 98% | +2 |
| Arazzo workflows | 2% | 2% | 0 |
| Governance rules | 9% | 16% | -7 |
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 Eliq 66.5
- 2 Amber Electric 64.8
- 3 EDF Energy 62.2
- 4 Xoserve 62.1
- 5 UK Power Networks 61.7
- 6 Electricity North West 59.6
- 7 Origin Energy 59.6
- 8 Consumer Data Right (Energy) 57.1
- 9 Pacific Gas and Electric 55.5
- 10 OpenADR Alliance 55.3
- 1 ev.energy 54.2
- 2 Amber Electric 47.5
- 3 Eliq 47.4
- 4 Hydro-Québec 44.3
- 5 Southwest Power Pool 43
- 6 Voltair 42.3
- 7 Southern California Edison 41.7
- 8 Green Button Alliance 41.2
- 9 EDF Energy 40.3
- 10 Origin Energy 40.3
Coverage caveat. 193 of 208 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.