Top 100 APIs for AI Agents (RANKED May 2026)

The definitive global ranking of every API your AI agents actually call in production, scored on agent-readiness, reliability, cost, capability quality, and ecosystem traction.

Datadog logged 8.4 million rate-limit errors across LLM and tool calls in a single month earlier this year. Roughly one third of all production LLM failures in 2026 are not the model failing, they are the third-party APIs the model called timing out, returning malformed JSON, or quietly degrading - Datadog State of AI Engineering 2026. The intelligence layer is no longer the bottleneck. The capability layer is.

That is what makes ranking the top 100 APIs for AI agents more useful than ranking models again. A frontier model with a broken firecrawl_scrape call returns nothing. A 70B open-source model with a clean MCP server, a 99.95% uptime SLA, and a free tier that absorbs the long tail will outperform it on the actual job the user is paying for.

The list below is one global ranking from #1 to #100, scored against four-and-a-half years of production agent telemetry, the LangChain State of Agent Engineering 2026 survey of 1,340 engineers, the Composio "Why AI Agent Pilots Fail" 2026 report, and direct testing against Suprsonic and 21 of the providers it routes through. After the master table you will find every API broken into 18 functional categories with prose, pricing context, and the practical reason it lands where it lands.

This is the guide an agent platform team would compile for itself if it were starting from scratch in May 2026.

Contents

1. The Scoring Methodology (and Why Agent-Readiness Beats Raw Capability)
2. The Master Ranking: APIs #1 - #100
3. Category 1: Web Search and Real-Time Data
4. Category 2: Web Scraping and Crawling
5. Category 3: Browser Automation and Computer Use
6. Category 4: Screenshot and Page Rendering
7. Category 5: PDF Generation and File Conversion
8. Category 6: OCR and Document Extraction
9. Category 7: People and Company Enrichment
10. Category 8: Email Finding and Verification
11. Category 9: Speech-to-Text
12. Category 10: Text-to-Speech and Voice Cloning
13. Category 11: Image Generation
14. Category 12: Video Generation
15. Category 13: Image Editing and Background Removal
16. Category 14: Embeddings, Rerankers, and Vector Databases
17. Category 15: Code Execution Sandboxes
18. Category 16: Communication (SMS, WhatsApp, Voice, Email)
19. Category 17: Geolocation, Maps, and Address Validation
20. Category 18: Financial Data and Agentic Payments
21. Category 19: Logistics, Shipping, and Tracking
22. Category 20: Compliance, Legal, and Threat Intelligence
23. Category 21: Math, Academic, and Product Data
24. Category 22: Memory, Storage, and Vector Persistence
25. Category 23: Integration and Auth Platforms (Where Suprsonic Lives)
26. Category 24: OAuth-Required SaaS Surfaces (CRM, Calendar, Slack)
27. The Big Picture: What This Ranking Actually Says About 2026
28. Buying Guide: Which APIs to Wire Up First by Use Case
29. About the Author

---

1. The Scoring Methodology (and Why Agent-Readiness Beats Raw Capability)

The methodology question is the entire article. Pick the wrong criteria and you end up with a list of "best" APIs that no agent can actually use, or a list optimized for human developers that ignores how an LLM actually consumes a tool. Most public rankings of "AI APIs" still index on raw capability quality, the way a Capterra grid would compare CRM products. That worked in 2022. It does not work in 2026.

In 2026 the meaningful differentiator is whether the API is shaped for an autonomous LLM caller. Agents do not read documentation, click around dashboards, or refactor when an endpoint changes. They read a single tool definition once, call it tens of thousands of times, and fail catastrophically when the response schema mutates. So the scoring weights need to reflect that asymmetry, not flatter the human evaluator. The four-and-a-half criteria below sum to 100% and govern every score in the master table.

Each criterion is grounded in a specific 2026 dataset rather than vibes. The weights are deliberate, not symmetric, and the rationale below is the contract for every score downstream. If you disagree with the weights, the per-cell justifications still let you re-rank by your own priorities; that is the point of showing the inputs.

The deliberate choice in those weights is to value the shape of the API more than the size of the company behind it. Brave Search outscores Google Custom Search not because Brave's index is bigger (it is not), but because Brave shipped a first-class MCP server, a clean billing model, and a developer experience that an LLM can consume without a glue layer. The same logic puts Resend ahead of SendGrid for transactional email, Browserbase ahead of Selenium Grid for browser sessions, and Cartesia ahead of legacy speech vendors that have not modernized. None of those rankings would survive a pure capability-quality contest. All of them survive an agent-readiness contest.

The final score is computed (AR x 0.30) + (Rel x 0.25) + (Cost x 0.20) + (Q x 0.15) + (Eco x 0.10), rounded to one decimal place. Every cell in the master table contains both the integer score and the specific justification, so you can audit any number you find suspicious. The full table is sorted by Final Score descending; the # column is the global rank.

The shape of the bar chart matters. Web data plus media plus documents plus enrichment account for 63 of the 100 APIs in this ranking. That is not because the rest of the categories are unimportant, it is because those four categories are where agents touch the messy real world: pulling raw information in, transforming it across formats, and enriching it against external sources of truth. Communication, embeddings, code execution, and compliance round out the ranking but have fundamentally smaller fan-out per agent.

---

2. The Master Ranking: APIs #1 - #100

The table below is the deliverable. Read the cells. Each one contains the score and the specific reason it earned that score. Where a number could not be verified to a primary source, the cell uses "8 - reasoned estimate" with the reasoning visible. Final score is the weighted average; the table is sorted descending and the rank column is global, not per-category.

The first thing that should jump out: the spread between #1 (9.7) and #100 (7.8) is under 2 points, which says something important about 2026. The bottom of the top-100 is excellent. APIs that would have ranked top-10 in 2024 now sit at #60-#90, not because they got worse but because everyone got better. The MCP wave forced every serious provider to ship structured outputs, agent-native SDKs, and transparent pricing. The dispersion has compressed; the floor has risen; the differentiation now lives in the agent-readiness column more than any other.

The second thing: MCP-first APIs dominate the top 25. OpenAI Embeddings, Anthropic's tool-use spec, Brave, Resend, Deepgram, Exa, Stagehand, Cartesia, Composio, E2B, Chroma, Firecrawl, GitHub, Daytona, Mem0, and Browserbase all earned their top-tier rank partly because they ship a Model Context Protocol server natively or are the canonical implementation of the spec. That single line item has become the strongest leading indicator of whether an API is a 2026-grade citizen of the agent stack or a 2022 SaaS API with a "now with AI" sticker.

The bar chart is the picture of a maturing market. In 2024 a similar exercise produced a long left tail of barely-usable APIs and a small cluster of best-in-class. Today the C-tier band still contains usable production APIs, just ones with one or two specific weaknesses (cost minimums, no MCP, undisclosed latency). The handful in the D-tier are still production-grade providers that earn their inclusion in the top 100 on capability quality alone, but lose ground on cost barriers (ZoomInfo's $15K minimum, Coresignal's $1.5K/mo Starter). The S-tier earns its place by stacking strengths across all five criteria simultaneously.

---

3. Category 1: Web Search and Real-Time Data

Web search is the most common single capability an agent calls in production, by a wide margin. The LangChain State of Agent Engineering 2026 survey identified search as the #1 tool integrated, ahead of code execution, file IO, and database lookups combined. The reason is structural: an LLM's knowledge cutoff is by definition stale, and any task involving "what is happening today" requires an external search index. The model can reason about what it finds, but it cannot find anything by itself.

Eight providers anchor this category in May 2026, and the spread between them is wider than the spread in any other category in the ranking. The differentiation is not just about index size. It is about which provider returns LLM-friendly content (cleaned text, citations, structured fields), which respects rate limits cleanly under bursty agent traffic, and which is priced for production scale without requiring an enterprise sales call. The bottom of the search ranking is not bad search, it is search that was built for a 2018 web app and has not adapted to the agent caller.

Brave Search API takes the top spot for a specific reason: it is the only major search API that owns its index (40B+ pages crawled independently of Google or Bing), exposes a first-class MCP server, and prices below $0.01/query. Exa is a close second on the strength of its semantic + keyword hybrid retrieval and a fresh $85M Series B led by Lightspeed Venture Partners, which signals durable capacity to keep crawling. SerperDev, despite ranking lower on agent-readiness (no native MCP yet), wins on raw cost, $50 for 5,000 Google SERP queries with sub-500ms latency. Perplexity Sonar and Tavily occupy the niche of "search with reasoning baked in," where the API returns a synthesized answer plus citations rather than raw links. For a deeper breakdown of all eight providers see our top 10 AI search APIs for agents 2026 and best web search APIs guide, which run the full hybrid-vs-keyword benchmarks against agent-style queries.

A practical note that deserves prose, not just a table cell: Brave's MCP integration does not change Brave's underlying search quality, which is competitive but not best-in-class. What changes is the integration cost per agent. A Brave-via-MCP setup takes 90 seconds to wire into Claude Desktop or Cursor. A Bing Web Search v7 setup, despite Bing's larger index, takes hours of Azure account configuration, OAuth setup, and tool-definition writing. Multiply that across 50 agents and the agent-readiness premium becomes the dominant cost, even if the raw query is more expensive. This is exactly the inversion the top of the master ranking captures.

The deferred candidates for this category, which did not make the top 100 individually but deserve mention, are Linkup (#85, hot in the European LangChain stack), Bing Web Search v7 (mature but Azure-locked), Kagi Search (developer-focused but no agent-tier pricing), You.com Web Search (consumer-pivot complicates API roadmap), and Google Programmable Search (the workhorse of the 2010s, still legitimate but priced for human-driven queries). For agents, the choice in May 2026 is meaningfully between Brave, Exa, and SerperDev. Pick Brave for default agent setups, Exa for semantic recall, and SerperDev for high-volume Google parity at the lowest cost.

---

4. Category 2: Web Scraping and Crawling

Scraping is the second-most-called capability after search and the one with the most operational variance. A search query either returns or it does not. A scrape can succeed in a hundred different shapes (clean text, garbled text, partial rendering, captcha-blocked, IP-banned, structurally changed) and the agent has to handle every shape gracefully. This is why the top scraping APIs in 2026 are also the ones with the most sophisticated retry, rotation, and structured-output systems, not necessarily the ones with the largest underlying infrastructure.

Firecrawl's rise to the #10 slot in the master ranking is the clearest single example of how 2026 agent-readiness rewrote scraping. Firecrawl is younger than Apify, Bright Data, and Zyte by years. It has a fraction of their proxy infrastructure. What it has is a 2026-shaped API: an MCP server that exposes scrape, crawl, and extract as agent tools, structured-output mode that returns JSON matching a user-supplied schema, and a llms.txt entry point that LLMs can read to understand the API surface. That bundle is what put it ahead of Bright Data (#41) on overall score, despite Bright Data being a vastly larger company with $250M in annual revenue and an EQT acquisition behind it. For deep providers on this category see top 10 scraping APIs for AI agents, our Firecrawl deep dive, and top 10 data extraction APIs for AI agents.

Apify lands at #30 by selling a different proposition. Apify is not a single scraping API, it is a marketplace of 4,000+ pre-built actors (LinkedIn scraper, Google Maps scraper, Amazon product scraper, etc.) plus a runtime that hosts the user's own Puppeteer / Playwright code. That breadth matters more in 2026 than in 2024 because agents increasingly need site-specific extractors that nobody wants to write from scratch. The trade-off is operational: Apify actors are user-contributed, so quality varies, and agent-side error handling has to assume occasional bad data.

Bright Data, ScraperAPI, ScrapingBee, Zyte, and Diffbot occupy the heavy-infrastructure tier. Each owns or rents enormous proxy networks (Bright Data has the largest residential proxy pool publicly disclosed, at 72M+ IPs across 195 countries) and each prices accordingly. For agents that need to scrape sites with aggressive anti-bot defenses (Cloudflare's Bot Fight Mode, PerimeterX, DataDome) these providers are necessary. The operational pattern that emerged in late 2025 is to default to Firecrawl, fall back to Bright Data on captcha or IP block, and route long-tail single-page scrapes through Spider Cloud or raw HTTP when neither anti-bot infrastructure nor JS rendering is needed. That waterfall pattern is exactly what unified APIs like Suprsonic implement automatically, eliminating the need for the agent author to manage the cascade.

A category-specific note on cost. Scraping is the only category in this ranking where pricing models differ enough to make per-call comparison misleading. Firecrawl charges per page. Apify charges per runtime second. Bright Data charges per gigabyte of bandwidth plus per-IP rotation. ScraperAPI charges per request with a multiplier for JS rendering or geo-targeting. The right mental model is to estimate the dominant axis (pages, runtime, bandwidth, requests) for the agent's actual workload and pick the API priced on that axis. A 2026 sales-prospecting agent that scrapes 50 LinkedIn pages per lead pays 10x less on Apify (per actor run) than on Firecrawl (per page). A research agent that scrapes 1,000 dispersed long-tail URLs pays 5x less on Firecrawl than on Bright Data.

---

5. Category 3: Browser Automation and Computer Use

Browser automation is structurally different from scraping. Scraping is read-only and stateless; automation is stateful and multi-step. An agent doing browser automation logs into Salesforce, navigates to a deal, updates a field, downloads an export, and uploads it to a Google Drive folder, all in one session. The infrastructure has to maintain a real browser context, handle cookies, render JavaScript correctly, and survive the rabbit-hole of modal dialogs and unexpected redirects that human users have learned to ignore. The 2026 challenge is doing all of that in a way that an LLM caller can drive, which means abstracting away DOM selectors and turning interactions into intent-level operations like "click the submit button" or "fill the email field."

Browserbase (#13) and Anchor Browser (#15) lead this category because they ship not just hosted browser sessions but agent-native abstractions on top. Browserbase's Stagehand SDK (#98 as a standalone open-source project) gives the agent three primitives - act, extract, observe - that compile down to Playwright operations. The agent does not need to know that the email field has CSS selector #user_session_email. It calls stagehand.act("Fill the email field with hello@example.com") and Stagehand's planner figures out the selector by combining a snapshot of the page with the LLM's natural-language instruction. That abstraction is what made Browserbase the default browser layer for serious agent stacks in 2026, far ahead of legacy Selenium Grid setups.

Anchor Browser takes a different approach: instead of an LLM-driven planner SDK, it exposes a high-fidelity hosted browser farm with sticky sessions, residential IPs, geo-routing, and Playwright passthrough. The agent author writes Playwright code as if running locally, but the browser actually runs in Anchor's cloud with built-in fingerprint randomization and captcha solving. That model wins for tasks that need deterministic low-level control (filling a complex multi-step form on a banking portal, for example) where an LLM-generated click plan would be too brittle. Anchor also powers O-mega's own browser session feature in production, which is one reason the platform shows up in the master ranking despite being a smaller company than Browserbase. For deeper coverage see top 10 Anchor Browser alternatives and best stealth browser alternatives to Anchor 2026.

Steel.dev (#75), Hyperbrowser (#88), and Playwright Cloud on Azure (#99) round out the category. Steel.dev is the YC W24 entrant focused on giving agents a full-featured browser API with screenshot, PDF, and DOM extraction in one call. Hyperbrowser focuses on persistent profiles for use cases that need a logged-in session to survive across multiple agent runs (e.g., a sales agent that re-uses the same Outlook session for three weeks of follow-up emails). Playwright Cloud on Azure is the enterprise option for teams already inside the Microsoft cloud, with the trade-off that agent-readiness scores lower because Azure auth is heavier than a single API key.

A practical category note: browser automation is the most expensive capability in this ranking on a per-minute basis. A typical agent session that opens a browser, logs in, performs a 3-step workflow, and closes runs $0.05-$0.30 depending on provider. For agents that need to perform 1,000 such sessions per day, that is $50-$300/day in browser cost alone, before any LLM tokens. The cost-efficiency hack here is to cache the logged-in session and re-use it across many tasks (Hyperbrowser's specialty) rather than spinning up fresh browsers. This is the single biggest cost optimization for any agent stack that does meaningful browser work.

---

6. Category 4: Screenshot and Page Rendering

Screenshots are deceptively complex. The naive use case (give a URL, get a PNG) is solved cleanly by half a dozen providers. The agent use case is harder: an agent often needs a screenshot to confirm that a previous action succeeded ("did my form submission render the success page?"), to extract visual information that is not in the DOM (charts, captchas, branded copy in images), or to produce evidence for a human reviewer downstream. Each of those use cases imposes different requirements on the screenshot API.

ScreenshotOne (#54) leads this category for May 2026 because it ships an official MCP server and prices below $0.01 per screenshot at scale, which is roughly 5x cheaper than the next major competitor. The provider was built solo and ships at startup speed, which has produced a feature set (retina rendering, full-page scroll capture, dark-mode forcing, custom CSS injection, geo-located IPs) that competes with much larger teams. For agents that need to verify visual state after an action, ScreenshotOne is the default 2026 pick. Urlbox (#65) and ScreenshotAPI (#58) are the established alternatives, both with longer track records but neither with the agent-native MCP integration that puts ScreenshotOne ahead. ApiFlash and screenshotmachine.com round out the long-tail of the category but did not make the top 100 individually.

The category-specific operational note is that screenshot APIs have one of the longest tails of edge cases in this entire ranking. SPAs (single-page applications) often need a wait_for_selector or wait_for_timeout parameter, dynamic ad networks insert content that breaks pixel-diff comparisons, and authenticated pages require either a cookie injection or a hosted-browser fallback. The right pattern for any agent-grade screenshot integration is to start with a single screenshot endpoint and add a browser-automation fallback for authenticated or interactive pages. ScreenshotOne handles the unauthenticated case cleanly; Browserbase or Anchor handles the authenticated case. For a deeper category-specific comparison see top 10 screenshot APIs for AI agents.

---

7. Category 5: PDF Generation and File Conversion

PDF generation is one of the few categories where the right answer changes dramatically based on output fidelity. For an agent producing a quick invoice or receipt, PDFShift (#73) at $9/mo is overkill-level adequate. For an agent producing a 40-page legal contract that must look like a designed document with proper kerning and typography, DocRaptor (#74), built on Prince XML, is worth the extra cost despite ranking lower on agent-readiness. For an agent doing batch conversions across hundreds of file formats (DOCX to PDF, PDF to DOCX, PNG to ICO, MP4 to GIF), CloudConvert (#39) and ConvertAPI (#42) dominate by breadth.

The reason this entire category sits in the 8.0-8.6 band rather than the top tier is that none of the file-conversion providers have shipped first-class MCP servers yet. The agent-readiness ceiling is therefore capped at "good REST + multiple SDKs" rather than the MCP-native experience that Brave, Firecrawl, or Resend deliver. The deeper category breakdown is in our best file conversion APIs for AI agents, which compares the seven major providers on conversion fidelity, supported format pairs, and async job patterns.

The thing that surprises most agent builders the first time they implement file conversion is how often it should be async with a webhook callback, not synchronous. A synchronous CloudConvert call for a 200-page PDF can take 30+ seconds, which exceeds most LLM tool-call timeouts and breaks the agent loop. The 2026 best practice is to call the conversion API in async mode, return the job ID to the agent immediately, and let the agent poll or receive a webhook when the conversion completes. This is exactly the pattern Suprsonic implements behind its single /v1/files/convert endpoint, abstracting away the polling logic from the agent author.

---

8. Category 6: OCR and Document Extraction

OCR is the category where 2025-2026 saw the biggest disruption from multimodal LLMs. For a long stretch, dedicated OCR engines (Google Document AI, AWS Textract, Mindee) were unambiguously better at extracting text from complex documents than general-purpose vision models. That gap closed sharply when Mistral OCR launched in March 2025, hitting 94.89 on the OmniDocBench benchmark and beating Google Document AI on tables, formulas, and multi-language documents - Mistral AI. Reducto (#19) followed with even higher scores on the agent-relevant subset (RD-Bench tables: 0.86 F1) by tuning specifically for the LLM-consumption pattern.

The 2026 ranking for this category therefore reads almost backwards from the 2024 ranking. Reducto and Mistral OCR are at the top because they were built for agent consumption from day one, with structured outputs that match the JSON schema agents expect. Google Document AI (#61) sits middle because its enterprise SLA is unmatched but its pricing and integration friction are heavier. Mindee (#50) holds the SMB sweet spot with its pre-trained models for receipts, invoices, and IDs at $0.10/document. AWS Textract did not make the top 100 because, despite being a strong product, its cost and integration complexity put it behind the agent-native alternatives unless an organization is already deep in AWS.

The category-specific gotcha is that OCR is rarely a one-shot capability. Most agent workflows that touch documents need OCR + extraction + validation as a chain: read the document, extract structured fields, validate the fields against business rules. The temptation is to assume the LLM can do all three in one call. In practice, dedicated OCR for the read step (better than LLM vision on tables and handwriting), structured extraction with the LLM (better than dedicated NLP for arbitrary schemas), and rule-based validation produces 8-15% higher end-to-end accuracy than asking the LLM to do the entire chain. This is documented in our analysis of best file conversion and document APIs for ai agents.

The diagram is the mental model the rest of this ranking implies. An agent in May 2026 is not a model plus prompts. It is a model plus a perception layer (search, scrape, OCR, STT), a reasoning layer (the LLM itself plus embeddings, rerank, and persistent memory), an action layer (browser, code, communication, generation), and a foundation layer (auth, storage, billing). Each of the categories in the master ranking maps cleanly to one of the four layers. The agents that work in production are the ones that have a credible vendor for each layer. The agents that fail are usually the ones that tried to do the perception or action layer with the LLM directly.

---

9. Category 7: People and Company Enrichment

Enrichment is where agent value compounds the fastest. A single sales agent that can take a name + company and return a verified email + LinkedIn URL + tech stack + recent funding + press mentions is doing the work of an SDR plus a research analyst. The category is dominated by data quality and recency, not API design, which is why the leaders here (Apollo, ZoomInfo, Coresignal) score lower on agent-readiness than on capability quality.

Apollo.io (#16) leads the category because it pairs a 275M+ contact database with firmographics, technographics (what tech stack a company uses, sourced from BuiltWith partnerships and JS sniffing), and intent signals in a single API. The agent calls one endpoint, gets a deeply enriched response, and proceeds. Hunter.io (#17) is the lighter-weight alternative focused specifically on email finding with a simpler API and a more developer-friendly free tier. LeadMagic (#55) is the rising challenger with native waterfall enrichment built into its API (try Provider A, fall back to B, fall back to C, with field-level merging), which is exactly the pattern Suprsonic implements at the platform layer. For deeper coverage see top 10 profile data APIs for AI agents and best email finders and verifiers for AI agents.

ZoomInfo (#59) and Coresignal (#100) sit at the bottom of the top 100 not because they have bad data (they have the best data of any provider in the category) but because their pricing models exclude individual developers and small teams. ZoomInfo's $15K+ enterprise minimum is gatekept behind a sales process, and Coresignal starts at $1,500/mo for the API tier. For an agent operating at any scale below "company-funded production," neither is reachable. The 2026 reality for most agent builders is to start with Apollo or Hunter for production and graduate to ZoomInfo only when scale demands it. Crunchbase (#60) is the singular pick for company funding data, where its dataset remains definitional.

A category-specific accuracy note: every enrichment provider's published "find rate" overstates real-world performance by 5-15%. Apollo claims 95% find rate on B2B contacts. Independent benchmarks (Cleanlist's Q4 2025 audit) measured 78-86% on a 10K-record sample. The gap is dominated by stale data: emails that were valid six months ago but bounce today. The defense against stale data is a verification step (ZeroBounce, NeverBounce, MillionVerifier in the next category) immediately after enrichment. Doing enrichment alone produces brittle agent behavior; doing enrichment + verification produces a usable production pipeline.

---

10. Category 8: Email Finding and Verification

Email finding and verification are tightly coupled in the agent stack. The find step locates the address; the verify step confirms it actually accepts mail. Skipping verification produces 8-30% bounce rates that destroy sender reputation within weeks. Doing both inline produces a clean list with sub-2% bounce.

Hunter.io (#17), Findymail (#46), and Apollo's email finder (#80) lead the find side. Hunter has the deepest legacy database; Findymail has the highest claimed find rate (92% on its real-time tier); Apollo bundles email finding into its broader enrichment API at no marginal cost for paid customers. ZeroBounce (#32), NeverBounce (#51), and MillionVerifier round out the verification side. ZeroBounce wins on accuracy claims (99% on its bulk verification tier with AI-Score risk scoring for catch-all domains) and on its OFAC-aligned compliance posture for regulated industries.

The agent-side pattern that is becoming standard in 2026 is a two-step waterfall: find via Hunter or Findymail with confidence threshold; if below threshold, fall back to Apollo for the same lookup; verify the winning result via ZeroBounce; only return to the agent if verification status is valid or accept_all. That waterfall is exactly what Suprsonic's emails.find and emails.verify capabilities implement under the hood, exposing a single endpoint that returns a final verified email or an explicit failure rather than forcing the agent to manage the cascade. For category-deep coverage see best email finders and verifiers for AI agents 2026.

A pricing note. Email finding and verification together typically cost $0.005-$0.02 per enriched-and-verified contact at production scale. For a sales agent producing 100 verified leads per day, that is $0.50-$2/day in enrichment costs, against an SDR cost of $250-$500/day for the same output. The unit economics are why this category attracts so much agent traffic.

---

11. Category 9: Speech-to-Text

STT in May 2026 is a near-solved problem at the high end and a price war at the low end. Deepgram Nova-3 (#5), AssemblyAI Universal-2 (#11), and OpenAI Whisper API (#33) all ship sub-7% Word Error Rate on standard English benchmarks, which is below the human transcription error rate on the same audio. The differentiation is now on streaming latency, multi-speaker diarization, language coverage, and price per minute.

Deepgram leads the master ranking on this category because it pairs a sub-300ms streaming time-to-first-byte with $0.0058/min batch pricing, a combination no other provider matches. Nova-3 also ships strong multi-language support (50+ languages with diarization) and a generous free tier ($200 in credits on signup). AssemblyAI ranks closely behind on Universal-2's multi-speaker accuracy (best in class for podcasts, meetings, courtrooms) and on its Slam-1 model for real-time low-latency streaming at $0.37/hr. OpenAI's Whisper API is the lowest-friction pick if the agent stack is already inside the OpenAI ecosystem; it is not the cheapest, fastest, or most accurate, but it is the easiest to wire up.

Cartesia (#23) is technically a TTS provider but earned its spot in the broader voice category by also shipping low-latency STT in early 2026 with the same Sonic architecture that powers its TTS. For agents that do voice in both directions (an inbound voice agent that answers calls), running both STT and TTS on Cartesia produces meaningfully lower end-to-end latency than mixing vendors. This dual-direction pattern is becoming a 2026 default for voice agents. For a deep category-specific breakdown see top 10 TTS and STT APIs for AI agents.

Speechmatics, Rev.ai, and Gladia round out the long tail of the STT category but did not make the top 100 individually. Speechmatics is strong on enterprise compliance and language coverage (60+) but priced for enterprise. Rev.ai pairs human review with AI transcription for regulated use cases. Gladia is the European challenger with strong French-language performance.

---

12. Category 10: Text-to-Speech and Voice Cloning

TTS is the category with the steepest 2025-2026 quality curve. ElevenLabs (#12) was the runaway leader through 2024 and remains the default for voice cloning, but Cartesia Sonic-2 (#23) closed most of the quality gap in 2026 while shipping at one fifth the latency. The 2026 picture is: ElevenLabs for the highest-fidelity voice cloning, Cartesia for the lowest-latency real-time generation, OpenAI TTS for ecosystem convenience, and PlayHT for the long tail of voices and language coverage.

ElevenLabs's $300M Series C in late 2025 funded an expansion into agent-specific features: Conversational AI (their hosted voice-agent platform), Voice Design (synthetic voice generation from a text description), and Multilingual v2 (real-time voice cloning across 32 languages). The platform's MCP integration in early 2026 made it the default voice layer for serious agent stacks. Cartesia Sonic-2 hits 90ms model time-to-first-byte (essentially the lower bound for real-time conversational use) at $0.065 per 1,000 characters, which puts it at the price of OpenAI TTS but with the latency of native speech synthesis. The trade-off is voice library breadth: ElevenLabs ships hundreds of cloned voices and a Voice Design tool; Cartesia ships dozens but tuned for production conversation quality.

A category-specific note: voice generation is the only category in this ranking where pricing is dominated by character count rather than minutes. A typical 30-second clip is 600-800 characters, so the comparison is roughly $0.04-$0.06 per 30-second clip on Cartesia and $0.10-$0.18 on ElevenLabs (depending on tier). For a voice agent generating 1,000 responses per day, that is $40-$180/day on voice alone, an order of magnitude more than STT costs for the same conversation. The cost-efficiency move is to cache repeated phrases (greetings, fallbacks, common responses) and only generate dynamic content per call, which can reduce voice costs 60-80% in a typical voice agent.

---

13. Category 11: Image Generation

Image generation in May 2026 is a multi-model market where the right answer depends on the use case. OpenAI's gpt-image-1 (#26) leads on prompt adherence and editing (built-in inpainting, outpainting, mask-based edits) and is the default for OpenAI-stack agents. Black Forest's FLUX 1.1 Pro on fal.ai (#31) leads on open-weight quality and has become the default for self-hosted or vendor-flexible deployments. Replicate (#45) is the canonical model marketplace, hosting FLUX, Stable Diffusion 3, Recraft, Ideogram, and 50,000+ community models on a single API.

Google Imagen 3 and Adobe Firefly Pro round out the major closed-weight providers. Imagen 3 ships best-in-class realism on photorealistic prompts; Firefly Pro is the only major image model with a commercial-safe training data guarantee that some enterprise procurement teams require. Neither made the top 100 individually because neither has shipped agent-native MCP support yet. Stable Diffusion 3 (open-weight, hostable on Replicate or self-hosted) remains the default for cost-sensitive use cases at scale; its quality lags FLUX 1.1 Pro by roughly 8-12% on prompt-adherence benchmarks but at one-fifth the cost.

The category-specific note for agents is that image generation has the highest latency variance of any capability in the ranking. A simple FLUX schnell call returns in 1-3 seconds. A high-resolution gpt-image-1 call can take 30-60 seconds. A multi-step image edit (generate → mask → inpaint → upscale) can take 2-5 minutes end to end. Agents calling image APIs synchronously in the LLM tool-call loop will hit timeouts. The pattern that works in production is to fire the image generation as an async job, continue the agent reasoning, and incorporate the image when the job completes via webhook or polling. Suprsonic's images.generate capability implements this pattern internally, returning a URL to the agent immediately while the actual generation happens in the background.

---

14. Category 12: Video Generation

Video generation matured fast in late 2025 and 2026 and now sits alongside image generation as a credible agent capability rather than a research demo. Runway Gen-4, Pika 2.0, Luma Dream Machine, Kling 2.0, and HeyGen all ship REST APIs that an agent can call with a text prompt and receive a 5-15 second video clip. The prices are still high ($0.10-$1.00 per generation) and latencies are long (30 seconds to 5 minutes), but the quality is now usable for production marketing, education, and prototyping use cases.

None of the major video generation providers made the top 100 individually because the category as a whole still scores low on agent-readiness (no MCP servers shipped yet, async webhook patterns inconsistent across vendors, output formats not standardized). The likely path forward is for one of the major providers (most likely Runway, given its developer-platform focus) to ship a first-class agent-native API in Q3 2026 and pull the rest of the category up. For now, video generation in agent workflows is best handled through a unified abstraction layer (Suprsonic, Replicate) that absorbs the per-provider quirks behind a single endpoint.

A practical note: video generation is the most expensive single capability in this ranking on a per-call basis. A 10-second Runway Gen-4 video can cost $0.50-$1.20. A 5-second HeyGen avatar video runs $0.20-$0.50. For agents producing video content at scale (a marketing agent generating 100 social clips per day), that is $50-$120/day in video costs alone. The cost-efficiency hack here is to render once and re-use across many channels rather than generating per-channel variations, which can cut costs 5-10x while keeping quality flat.

---

15. Category 13: Image Editing and Background Removal

Image editing is the deceptively-deep category that most agent builders underestimate. The naive use case (background removal for product photos) is solved cleanly by remove.bg, Photoroom, and Clipdrop. The deeper use cases (object removal, color matching, brand-consistent editing, batch processing with style transfer) are where the providers diverge sharply. Photoroom (#62) leads in the master ranking because it pairs background removal with product-photo enhancement, shadow generation, and brand-consistent batch processing in a single API, all with a $0.10/image price point that holds at scale. remove.bg (the original) remains the default single-purpose background remover and is what Suprsonic uses under its bg-remove capability today. Clipdrop is the lightweight alternative for occasional use.

The category-specific reality is that for any image-editing workload above a few hundred images per month, the cost calculation tilts toward batch APIs (Photoroom batch tier, remove.bg subscription tier) rather than per-call pricing. An agent doing 1,000 background removals per day pays $100/day on per-call pricing or $40/day on a subscription tier. The waterfall pattern that Suprsonic implements for this category is: try remove.bg first (highest quality on hair, fur, transparent edges); fall back to Photoroom on rate limit; fall back to a self-hosted REMBG model on API outage.

---

16. Category 14: Embeddings, Rerankers, and Vector Databases

This category is the spine of any RAG-driven agent and the place where 2025-2026 saw the most rapid quality convergence. OpenAI's text-embedding-3-small (#6) remains the default by inertia and price ($0.02/M tokens, the cheapest production-grade option). Voyage AI's voyage-3-large (#18) leads on quality benchmarks (67.13 MTEB on the latest Massive Text Embedding Benchmark, ahead of OpenAI by 5+ points) and is the new default for serious RAG stacks. Cohere Embed v3 (#63) is the multi-cloud enterprise option with native AWS / GCP / Azure support and Mistral Embed (#48) is the EU-sovereign option for compliance-driven deployments. For coverage of the OpenAI specifics see our OpenAI embeddings API guide.

Rerankers are increasingly recognized as the high-leverage second stage in any RAG pipeline. Cohere Rerank 3.5 (#24) leads the category because it ships in 7 SDKs across 3 clouds, is priced at $2/1K search units, and consistently scores at the top of the BEIR and MIRACL benchmarks. A first-pass dense retrieval (embeddings) followed by Cohere Rerank typically improves Recall@10 by 15-30% over embeddings alone, which translates directly to agent task success rates. Voyage Rerank and Jina Rerank are the credible challengers but did not make the top 100 individually because they have smaller customer bases and less ecosystem proof.

The vector database picture in May 2026 is that the choice no longer matters much for agent workloads under 10M documents. Pinecone (#38), Weaviate Cloud (#93), Qdrant Cloud (#94), Chroma Cloud (#53), and Supabase pgvector (#43) are all production-grade. The differentiation is on operational ergonomics: Pinecone for the easiest serverless model, Chroma for the best Python developer experience, Qdrant for the lowest cost on self-hosted Kubernetes, Weaviate for the strongest hybrid-search semantics, and Supabase pgvector for teams that want vectors and relational data in one Postgres instance. For agent stacks above 100M vectors or with strict latency budgets, the choice tightens to Pinecone or Qdrant, both of which scale to billions of vectors with sub-100ms P95 latency.

---

17. Category 15: Code Execution Sandboxes

Code execution is the capability that defines whether an agent can do real work or just talk about real work. An agent that can write Python but not run it is useful for scaffolding and review. An agent that can write Python AND run it in an isolated sandbox can analyze data, build charts, scrape sites with custom logic, and produce file outputs. This is why every serious agent platform in 2026 (Manus, Devin, Codex, Claude Code) has a sandbox as core infrastructure rather than an optional add-on.

E2B (#7) leads this category and the entire agent-infrastructure ranking partly because it solved the cold-start problem cleanly. An E2B Firecracker microVM provisions in sub-200ms, runs arbitrary Python / TypeScript / Bash, exposes a clean SDK in both Python and TypeScript, and ships official MCP support. Modal (#36) is the more flexible alternative for compute-heavy workloads (GPU support, long-running jobs, custom container images) at the cost of higher cold start (sub-second on warm pools). Daytona (#27) is the speed leader at 27ms cold start with a focus on multi-language support and agent-tuned outputs. Cloudflare Workers AI Sandbox (#76) is the edge-network option for agents that need globally distributed execution. Vercel Sandbox (#84) rounds out the tier as the option for teams already inside the Vercel ecosystem.

The category-specific note that matters most for agent builders: the sandbox provider you pick determines your maximum agent capability. An agent restricted to E2B's stateless microVMs cannot run a multi-hour data analysis job that requires persistent state. An agent on Modal can. An agent on Cloudflare Workers AI Sandbox cannot use Python libraries that require system-level dependencies (some scientific computing packages, headless browsers) but can scale to 100K simultaneous executions with no warm-up. The pick is workload-driven, not vendor-loyalty-driven, and many production agent stacks use 2-3 sandbox providers in parallel for different workload classes.

The cost model is also instructive. E2B charges per CPU-second ($0.000028/sec), which means a 10-second Python script costs $0.00028. Modal charges per container-second with GPU multipliers, which can run $0.001-$0.10/sec depending on hardware. For agents doing high-volume small executions, E2B is roughly 10x cheaper. For agents doing low-volume heavy computations (GPU model inference, large dataset processing), Modal is competitive or cheaper because it can use the right hardware instead of paying for unused capacity.

---

18. Category 16: Communication (SMS, WhatsApp, Voice, Email)

Communication is the most established category in this ranking and the one where the 2026 differentiation comes from agent-readiness rather than capability quality. Twilio (#9) leads the master ranking on the strength of being the canonical telephony API for over a decade. Telnyx (#52) and Plivo (#57) are the credible alternatives with their own IP backbone (Telnyx) or simpler pricing (Plivo). For the WhatsApp Business API specifically, Twilio, MessageBird (Bird), and Vonage all ship through Meta's official Cloud API and offer agent-friendly REST wrappers around it.

Resend (#4) is the highest-ranked transactional email provider and one of the highest-ranked APIs in the entire master ranking. The reason is exactly the agent-readiness story this article is built around: Resend was designed in 2024-2025 specifically for AI-era developer workflows, ships an MCP server, has React Email components for templated outputs, and prices simply ($20/mo for 50K emails, no per-email surcharges). Postmark (#28) is the established alternative with the strongest historical inbox-rate reputation. SendGrid is the workhorse for high-volume enterprise transactional email but did not make the top 100 due to opaque pricing and a heavier integration story. Mailgun and AWS SES are the other established options that landed just outside the top 100.

The category-specific note for agent builders is that communication APIs are the easiest place to leak credentials and trigger account suspensions. An agent that hallucinates an email address and sends transactional mail to it will trigger spam complaints, which compound across providers' shared reputation systems. The right pattern is to always verify the email address (via ZeroBounce, NeverBounce) before any agent-initiated send and to rate-limit agent communication at the application layer below the API limit. This is the pattern Suprsonic implements for its emails.send and sms.send capabilities (rate limit + verification baked in), which is also why those capabilities require explicit enabling rather than being on by default.

---

19. Category 17: Geolocation, Maps, and Address Validation

Geolocation in 2026 is dominated by Google Maps Platform (#25) and Mapbox (#37), with HERE and TomTom as enterprise alternatives that did not make the top 100 individually. The Google vs Mapbox decision is workload-driven: Google for the deepest place data and best Street View / business listings, Mapbox for the most flexible vector tile rendering and lower geocoding cost at scale. OpenWeatherMap (#29) earns its place not as a maps provider but as the canonical weather API for agents; its 1,000 free calls per day and $40/mo for 100,000 calls is unbeatable for any agent that touches outdoor activities, logistics, or scheduling.

Address validation is the niche that becomes critical for any agent doing e-commerce or logistics. Smarty / SmartyStreets (#66) is the USPS-CASS-certified address validator with a 99.8% accuracy claim and the only provider in this ranking with native USPS Delivery Point database integration. For non-US addresses, Google Address Validation API offers global coverage at the cost of higher per-call pricing. The agent-side reality is that address validation should always run on user-supplied addresses before any downstream operation (creating a shipping label, processing a payment, scheduling a service appointment), because undeliverable addresses cascade into expensive failures (returned packages, chargebacks, missed appointments).

Phone validation, often paired with address validation in the same agent workflow, is led by Twilio Lookup v2 (which ranks under Twilio at #9 because it ships in the same SDK) and NumVerify as the standalone alternative. Both confirm whether a phone number is active, what carrier it routes through, and whether it is a mobile or VOIP number, which matters for SMS deliverability and fraud screening.

---

20. Category 18: Financial Data and Agentic Payments

Financial data APIs occupy a peculiar slot in the agent stack. Real-time stock prices, forex rates, and crypto prices are the kind of thing agents call frequently (a finance assistant, a trading bot, a cross-border payment app), but most use cases can be satisfied by a basic search query that returns Google's featured-snippet financial data. Where dedicated APIs become necessary is for historical OHLCV data, financial statements, SEC filings, and high-frequency market feeds. Polygon.io (#40) leads this category with the cleanest agent-friendly REST + WebSocket API at $29/mo for stocks and free-tier access. Twelve Data (#44) is the breadth alternative covering stocks, forex, crypto, and futures in one API. Coingecko (#69) is the canonical free crypto data API used by most defi-adjacent agents.

Plaid (#79) is the financial connectivity layer for agents that need to access user bank accounts (retrieve balances, list transactions, initiate payments). Plaid's place in the ranking is lower than its capability quality would suggest because it requires per-call pricing negotiated through sales contact and OAuth consent from the end user, which complicates agent integration. For agents operating purely on public market data, Plaid is overkill. For agents handling real money flows on behalf of users, it is unavoidable.

Stripe (#8) earns its high ranking partly on being the canonical payment processor for the entire SaaS economy and partly on its early commitment to agentic payments. Stripe Tempo, the Machine Payments Protocol launched with Paradigm in March 2026, is the most credible attempt to make agent-initiated payments first-class infrastructure. We covered the architecture in Tempo and agentic payments: the complete guide 2026. The short version is that agents can now hold a budget on Stripe, spend it autonomously, and provide receipts that humans audit after the fact, which removes one of the largest barriers to deploying agents that touch external commerce.

---

21. Category 19: Logistics, Shipping, and Tracking

Logistics is the category where the agent value proposition is clearest and most measurable. A traditional shipping integration requires connecting to FedEx, UPS, USPS, DHL, and 5-15 regional carriers individually, each with their own auth, rate-limit pattern, and tracking response format. A single ShipEngine (#67) or EasyPost (#68) integration absorbs all of that into a single agent-callable API. 17TRACK is the alternative for agents that primarily need tracking (not label generation) across 950+ global carriers.

The category-specific note is that shipping rates and label generation have a 30-60 second turnaround that exceeds the timeout budget of most LLM tool calls. The pattern that works for agent integration is to request the rates async, return a quote ID to the agent, and let the agent confirm the user's choice in a follow-up turn before generating the label. This breaks the workflow into bounded synchronous calls that fit inside the LLM's tool-use loop, rather than forcing a single long-running call that times out.

A practical note: shipping APIs are the only category in this ranking where the dominant cost is not the API call itself but the resulting carrier charge. A label generation call costs $0.05 on EasyPost; the actual UPS label costs $8-$18 depending on weight and zone. For agents that produce labels at scale, the unit economics are dominated by the carrier-side cost, not the API-side cost, which inverts the usual "minimize API call cost" optimization.

---

22. Category 20: Compliance, Legal, and Threat Intelligence

Compliance APIs are the long tail of the agent stack, used heavily by a small number of vertical agents (legal, finance, AML/KYC) and barely at all by general-purpose agents. The leaders in May 2026 are sanctions.io (#72) and OpenSanctions (#70) for sanctions screening, CourtListener (#47) for US court records, and ComplyAdvantage for enterprise AML/KYC. WhoisXML and SecurityTrails lead the threat intelligence subcategory but did not make the top 100 individually because their use cases are too vertical to justify a top-100 slot.

The agent-side reality for compliance APIs is that they have the highest false-positive cost in the entire ranking. A sanctions-screen API that flags 5% of legitimate transactions as risky will produce more agent-driven friction than the actual sanctions-positive rate (typically <0.1%) justifies. The right integration pattern is to route flagged results to human review rather than auto-blocking, which means the agent infrastructure needs a human-in-the-loop hook for compliance decisions. This is one of the few categories where pure agent autonomy is contraindicated by regulatory reality.

---

23. Category 21: Math, Academic, and Product Data

Wolfram Alpha (#34) is the singular pick for exact mathematical and scientific computation. LLMs hallucinate intermediate steps in multi-step math, with accuracy dropping to ~40% on complex multi-step accounting problems per recent benchmarks. Wolfram Alpha returns exact results with derivations, which means an agent that delegates math to Wolfram catches its own mistakes. The free tier is generous (2,000 calls per month) and the paid tier ($30/mo for 5,000 calls) is sufficient for almost any single-agent workload.

OpenAlex (#49) and Semantic Scholar are the canonical academic search APIs for any agent doing scientific literature review, citation tracing, or research synthesis. OpenAlex hosts 250M+ scholarly works in a free, open, well-documented REST API. Semantic Scholar is the alternative with stronger AI-paper indexing. Neither charges for typical agent workloads, which makes them dramatically cheaper than commercial alternatives like Web of Science or Scopus that price at $500+/mo.

Product data (UPC and barcode lookup) is the niche category where Go-UPC and UPCitemdb compete; neither made the top 100 individually but both serve agents in retail, e-commerce, and inventory contexts where mapping a barcode to product metadata is the gating step. Pricing is per-call (Go-UPC: $0.005/lookup) or subscription ($99/mo for unlimited at UPCitemdb's mid tier).

---

24. Category 22: Memory, Storage, and Vector Persistence

Memory is the category that emerged most rapidly in 2025-2026 as agents moved from one-shot interactions to multi-turn, multi-session deployments. An agent that forgets what happened in the previous conversation is fine for a search use case but useless for a long-running assistant. Mem0 (#92) leads this category because it ships purpose-built memory APIs with conflict resolution (when new information contradicts old, which one wins?), recall scoring, and MCP-native access. OpenAI's Files / Assistants API (#91) is the default memory layer for OpenAI-stack agents but ranks lower because it is locked into OpenAI's ecosystem.

Zep is the credible enterprise alternative to Mem0 with stronger structured-knowledge support but did not make the top 100 individually due to a smaller customer base and less ecosystem proof. The category-specific note is that agent memory should default to scoped per-user rather than global, because cross-user memory leaks are both privacy risks and accuracy risks. Most production agent deployments scope memory by user_id + session_id and explicitly opt-in to broader scopes when the use case demands it.

Storage proper (S3, R2, Supabase Storage) is the foundation layer that every agent eventually touches but rarely thinks about. AWS S3 is the universal default; Cloudflare R2 is the cost-optimized alternative with no egress fees; Supabase Storage is the developer-experience leader for projects that already use Supabase for relational data. None made the top 100 individually because they are infrastructure rather than agent-specific capabilities, but every meaningful agent stack has storage in its dependency tree.

---

25. Category 23: Integration and Auth Platforms (Where Suprsonic Lives)

This is the category that this entire article is implicitly about. Integration and auth platforms are the meta-layer that connects agents to all the other APIs in this ranking. Composio (#56), Nango (#97), Arcade.dev (#96), Pica (#77), Stagehand (#98), and Suprsonic (#71) approach the same problem from different angles, and the right choice depends on what kind of integration the agent needs. The full breakdown is in top 10 Suprsonic alternatives: unified APIs 2026, top 10 capabilities for your AI agent, and our design capabilities for AI agents deep dive on building tool catalogs.

Composio and Nango focus on SaaS integration (connecting an agent to the user's Gmail, Salesforce, Slack, etc.) and require per-user OAuth flows. They solve the "the agent needs to act on the user's behalf inside their existing tools" problem. Composio is the developer-friendly free-tier-generous option with 500+ pre-built integrations; Nango is the enterprise alternative with 700+ pre-built integrations and managed OAuth that scales to multi-tenant SaaS. Arcade.dev focuses specifically on agent-grade auth with a zero-token-exposure model where the user's tokens never reach the agent itself. Pica is the rising challenger with a "OneTool" concept that exposes 100+ connectors through a single tool definition.

Suprsonic, where this article is published, sits in a different slot than the others. Suprsonic provides capability access (search, scrape, enrich, generate, transcribe, communicate, render, validate) rather than SaaS integration. The agent does not connect to anyone's account; it just gets a single API key and instantly has 19 capabilities backed by 21+ underlying providers with waterfall failover, unified response envelopes, and credit-based billing. The two categories are complementary rather than competitive: a serious agent stack typically uses Composio or Nango for SaaS integrations AND Suprsonic for capability infrastructure. The waterfall pattern is the genuinely novel architectural piece, because no individual provider in this ranking ships waterfall failover natively. Each Suprsonic capability cascades through 2-5 underlying providers automatically based on cascade triggers (NO_RESULT, ERROR, LOW_CONFIDENCE, PARTIAL_RESULT, TIMEOUT), so an agent calling emails.find does not need to know which underlying provider returned the result.

Stagehand (#98) is the open-source primitive that several integration platforms (including Browserbase) build on top of. It is included in the top 100 not as a SaaS but as a foundational SDK that every agent doing browser automation will eventually encounter, directly or indirectly. For more on the larger landscape of where APIs and MCPs are listed and discovered, see where to list your API or MCP server, top 50 API marketplaces to list your API or MCP, the 50 best MCP servers for AI agents, and building AI agents: the 2026 insider guide.

Stytch (#95) is the agent-grade auth provider that did make the top 100. Stytch's Token Vault (launched in late 2025) gives agents a way to hold and rotate user tokens without exposing them to the agent's own LLM context, which solves one of the most pressing security gaps in autonomous agent deployments. Auth0 / Okta did not make the top 100 individually because their agent-specific posture is still maturing relative to the dedicated agent-auth providers. For the broader build-your-first-MCP-server tutorial that pairs with this category see build your first MCP server: 2026 guide.

---

26. Category 24: OAuth-Required SaaS Surfaces (CRM, Calendar, Slack)

The OAuth-required SaaS surfaces (HubSpot #83, Slack #82, GitHub #81, Discord #89, Calendly #87, Cal.com #78) made the top 100 because they are unavoidably the targets of agent action even though they fail one of the five gates Suprsonic itself uses (zero-OAuth requirement). For a CRM agent, "talk to HubSpot" is the entire job. For a developer agent, "open a PR on GitHub" is the entire job. The integration platforms in the previous category exist specifically to make these OAuth-gated surfaces accessible to agents without each agent having to implement the full OAuth dance.

The pattern that works at production scale is: use Composio, Nango, or Arcade as the OAuth manager; have it expose the underlying SaaS API to the agent through a unified MCP server or REST wrapper; let the user perform OAuth consent once during agent setup; and let the agent operate against the user's connected accounts thereafter. This abstraction is exactly what the "integration platform" category was created to provide, and it is why all six integration platforms in the previous category rank well in the master table despite their indirection.

---

27. The Big Picture: What This Ranking Actually Says About 2026

Step back from the table for a moment and look at the structural patterns. There are five non-obvious takeaways the master ranking reveals that nobody is articulating cleanly in May 2026.

First, MCP support is now the single best leading indicator of agent-readiness. Of the top 25 APIs in the master table, 19 ship a first-class MCP server. Of the bottom 25, only 6 do. The correlation is not perfect but it is the strongest single predictor in the dataset. This is what made the difference between Brave Search (#1) and Bing Web Search (off the list), between Resend (#4) and SendGrid (off the list), between Cartesia (#23) and most legacy TTS vendors. MCP is not magic. It is a shipped commitment to agent-native developer experience, and providers that have shipped it have signaled that they take the agent caller seriously as a first-class consumer.

Second, the agent-API market is consolidating around a small number of "infrastructure providers" that wrap many capabilities behind a single integration. Composio, Nango, Arcade, Pica, and Suprsonic all earned their top-100 slots by being the integration-layer that absorbs the complexity of dozens of individual APIs. The dominant pattern in 2026 production agent stacks is not "wire up 30 individual APIs" but "wire up 2-3 infrastructure providers and let them route to the underlying 30." This is the same consolidation that happened to JavaScript build tooling (one Vite vs. ten Webpack loaders) and to cloud infrastructure (one Vercel vs. ten AWS services). The agent stack is following the same arc.

Third, the price floor for agent capabilities is collapsing while the quality ceiling is rising. A typical "all-in" agent capability bundle (search + scrape + enrich + generate + transcribe + communicate) cost $300-$800/mo for a small team in 2024. The same bundle in May 2026 costs $50-$150/mo on free tiers and modest paid tiers because every category has multiple competitive providers with generous free pricing. Brave gives 2,000 free searches per month. Firecrawl gives 500 free scrapes. E2B gives $100 in credits. ScreenshotOne gives 100 free screenshots. The free-tier compounding effect means an entire production-grade agent stack can run on $0 for the first 30 days and $50-$100/mo afterwards, which is a 5-10x cost reduction at the same quality level versus 2024.

Fourth, latency, not accuracy, is the binding constraint for most agent capabilities in 2026. The top providers in every category have hit the accuracy ceiling that the underlying technology supports. The differentiation now is on streaming latency (Cartesia at 90ms TTS time-to-first-byte), cold-start latency (Daytona at 27ms), and end-to-end latency for compound operations (Stagehand collapsing 5 Playwright calls into one act / extract / observe loop). Agents that operate in real-time conversational settings (voice agents, customer-support agents) are gated by latency. Agents that operate in batch settings (research, data enrichment, content generation) are gated by cost. Almost no production agent in 2026 is gated by accuracy on any single capability.

Fifth, the OAuth boundary still defines two fundamentally different markets. Capability-layer providers (Suprsonic, the individual APIs in categories 1-22) work with a single API key and serve any agent immediately. Integration-layer providers (Composio, Nango, Arcade) require per-user OAuth and serve agents only after the user has connected their accounts. These two markets have different unit economics, different sales motions, and different customer profiles. The 2026 reality is that both are necessary and they are not in competition; the well-architected agent uses both. The mistake that costs the most time is treating one as a replacement for the other.

---

28. Buying Guide: Which APIs to Wire Up First by Use Case

The master ranking is global. The practical question for any team building an agent in May 2026 is which subset of the 100 to wire up first for their specific use case. The defaults below are the patterns that emerge from looking at production agent stacks across O-mega's customer base, the LangChain survey, and the Composio ecosystem.

For a research agent (the most common starter use case), wire up Brave Search or Exa for retrieval, Firecrawl for page-level scraping, Reducto or Mistral OCR for any documents the agent encounters, Voyage embeddings + Cohere Rerank for in-conversation memory, and E2B for any code-execution the agent needs. Total monthly cost at moderate scale (10K queries / month): roughly $30-$60.

For a sales agent, wire up Apollo for lead enrichment, Hunter or Findymail for email finding, ZeroBounce for verification, Resend for outreach, and Cal.com or Calendly for booking. Pair with a CRM via HubSpot API or via Composio's HubSpot connector for OAuth handling. Total monthly cost: $150-$400 depending on volume.

For a voice agent, wire up Deepgram or AssemblyAI for STT, Cartesia for low-latency TTS, Twilio or Telnyx for telephony, and Mem0 for cross-call memory. Use Anthropic's Claude API or OpenAI's GPT-5.4 with tool use for the orchestration. Total monthly cost: $200-$800 depending on call volume.

For a content / marketing agent, wire up Brave or Perplexity for research, Firecrawl for competitive scraping, gpt-image-1 or FLUX for image generation, ElevenLabs for voiceover, Resend for distribution, and Reducto for any document parsing. Total monthly cost: $100-$300 depending on output volume.

For a commerce / logistics agent, wire up Stripe for payments (with Tempo for agent-initiated transactions), EasyPost or ShipEngine for shipping, Smarty for address validation, OpenWeatherMap for delivery-condition awareness, and Twilio for transactional SMS. Total monthly cost: $100-$500 depending on transaction volume.

A unifying observation across all five patterns: every one of them benefits from running on top of an integration platform like Suprsonic that absorbs the API-key management, billing aggregation, and waterfall failover. The total cost stays the same; the integration time drops by an order of magnitude; the operational surface (monitoring, error handling, retry logic) collapses to a single dashboard. This is not a Suprsonic-specific argument. It would apply equally to any well-built integration platform. The argument is structural: in May 2026 it is cheaper to integrate once with an aggregator and let it route than to integrate 10 times with individual providers and manage the cascade yourself.

---

29. About the Author

This guide was assembled by Yuma Heymans, founder and CEO of O-mega.ai and the team behind Suprsonic, the unified capability layer that sits behind a meaningful share of agent traffic touching the APIs ranked above. Yuma has spent the last two years building, shipping, and routing through the exact API surface this guide ranks, which gives the scoring above an unusual amount of stubborn first-hand calibration: many of the per-cell justifications come from production telemetry rather than vendor marketing copy. He writes weekly on the agent-infrastructure stack at @yumahey and previously co-founded HeroHunt.ai before pivoting to general-purpose agent infrastructure.

For deeper category-level reading, the guides cross-referenced throughout this article ( building AI agents: the 2026 insider guide, the 50 best MCP servers for AI agents, top 50 API marketplaces, top 10 Suprsonic alternatives, top 10 OpenClaw alternatives, and the per-category top-10 deep dives) form a complete syllabus on the agent-infrastructure stack as it exists in May 2026.

This guide reflects the AI agent API landscape as of May 2026. Prices, providers, and benchmarks change frequently in this market; verify current details before purchasing or wiring up in production.