Utilities
Providers using this tag (248)
Ranked by API Evangelist rating — Exemplar and Strong are expanded by default.
Exemplar 1 Complete, well-documented, and agent-ready
Strong 15 Solid coverage with minor gaps
Developing 33 Usable, with meaningful gaps to close
Thin 44 Limited public surface area
Emerging 76 Early or largely undocumented
Minimal 79 Almost no public developer surface
APIs with this tag (101)
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 11 Complete, well-documented, and agent-ready
Strong 21 Solid coverage with minor gaps
Developing 26 Usable, with meaningful gaps to close
Thin 22 Limited public surface area
Emerging 15 Early or largely undocumented
Minimal 6 Almost no public developer surface
Companies reaching this through an API (82)
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 82 companies ↓
Score breakdown
Where this tag sits
248 providers carry this tag directly, and 281 counting the 4 narrower tags below — 33 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 229 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Contract Governance | 11.2 | 9.7 | +1.5 | 229 |
| Developer Ergonomics | 25.4 | 24.5 | +0.9 | 229 |
| Operational Transparency | 13.7 | 13.2 | +0.5 | 229 |
| Discoverability | 58.6 | 59.1 | -0.5 | 229 |
| Contract Quality | 17.1 | 18.6 | -1.5 | 229 |
| Access Clarity | 26.2 | 30 | -3.8 | 229 |
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) | 6% | 18% | -12 |
| MCP server (first-party) | 5% | 16% | -11 |
| Agent Skills | 0% | 0% | 0 |
| OAuth scopes | 18% | 13% | +5 |
| Security | 100% | 99% | +1 |
| Arazzo workflows | 2% | 1% | +1 |
| Governance rules | 36% | 36% | 0 |
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 66.6
- 2 EDF Energy 65.2
- 3 Amber Electric 65.1
- 4 UK Power Networks 64.1
- 5 Origin Energy 61.6
- 6 Xoserve 61.2
- 7 Green Button Alliance 60.9
- 8 Electricity North West 60.6
- 9 Consumer Data Right (Energy) 58.1
- 10 Pacific Gas and Electric 57.5
- 1 ev.energy 54.2
- 2 Eliq 51.5
- 3 Cernion 49.1
- 4 Amber Electric 47.5
- 5 Hydro-Québec 45.7
- 6 EDF Energy 43
- 7 Origin Energy 43
- 8 Southwest Power Pool 43
- 9 Voltair 42.3
- 10 Southern California Edison 41.7
Coverage caveat. 203 of 229 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 14 November 2026, across 41591 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.