Version Control
Source ControlSource Code ManagementGitVersion Control
Providers using this tag (47)
Ranked by API Evangelist rating — Exemplar and Strong are expanded by default.
Exemplar 3 Complete, well-documented, and agent-ready
Strong 2 Solid coverage with minor gaps
Developing 8 Usable, with meaningful gaps to close
Thin 13 Limited public surface area
Emerging 16 Early or largely undocumented
Minimal 5 Almost no public developer surface
APIs with this tag (61)
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 16 Complete, well-documented, and agent-ready
Strong 9 Solid coverage with minor gaps
Developing 11 Usable, with meaningful gaps to close
Thin 12 Limited public surface area
Emerging 13 Early or largely undocumented
Companies reaching this through an API (35)
These companies publish an API, specification or operation carrying “Version Control” 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 47 providers in the APIs.io catalog tagged Version Control, scored on the Kin Score. Every figure below is computed from the catalog — nothing here is written.
| Facet | This cohort | Catalog | Difference | Scored |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Developer Ergonomics | 35.8 | 23.2 | +12.6 | 47 |
| Contract Quality | 29.3 | 17.2 | +12.1 | 47 |
| Operational Transparency | 22.2 | 13 | +9.2 | 47 |
| Discoverability | 62.6 | 57.9 | +4.7 | 47 |
| Contract Governance | 11 | 6.5 | +4.5 | 47 |
| Access Clarity | 27.2 | 23.9 | +3.3 | 47 |
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% | 13% | +4 |
| MCP server (first-party) | 13% | 12% | +1 |
| Agent Skills | 0% | 0% | 0 |
| OAuth scopes | 13% | 11% | +2 |
| Security | 100% | 98% | +2 |
| Arazzo workflows | 6% | 2% | +4 |
| Governance rules | 43% | 16% | +27 |
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 GitLab 81
- 2 Azure DevOps 75.4
- 3 Bitbucket 71.4
- 4 Gitea 65.5
- 5 Azure Repos 56.6
- 6 Amazon CodeCatalyst 49.4
- 7 Replit 49.2
- 8 Sourcebot 47.6
- 9 Perforce 46.8
- 10 Radicle 44.2
- 1 Sourcebot 48.8
- 2 GitLab 46.4
- 3 Weblate 40.8
- 4 Git 36.6
- 5 Amazon CodeCatalyst 35.9
- 6 Rosentic 34.6
- 7 Azure DevOps 31.9
- 8 Gitea 31
- 9 Perforce 30.4
- 10 Gitee 29.2
Coverage caveat. 38 of 47 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.