Model Context Protocol VS XBRL
As of 30 October 2026, XBRL is named by 106 companies and Model Context Protocol by 3,710; Model Context Protocol skews to companies under 200 people (42% vs 24%), XBRL to companies over 1,000 (51% vs 31%).
As of 30 October 2026 · refreshed daily · counts move as websites, DNS and career sites are re-read.
The website-and-DNS footprint is not comparable between a marketing suite and a CRM: Model Context Protocol's script and mail records show on hundreds of thousands of small sites, XBRL rarely leaves a trace outside its own apps. Compare on the job-posting numbers; use the footprint for reach.
- Model Context Protocol: 2–200 employees
- 42%
- XBRL: 2–200 employees
- 24%
- Model Context Protocol: 1,000+ employees
- 31%
- XBRL: 1,000+ employees
- 51%
- Postings per company, 90 days
- 3.2 · 2.2
- Website or DNS footprint
- 0 · 0
Who chooses which
Share of each tool's companies in every segment. "Leans" marks a gap of more than two points.
| Segment | Model Context Protocol | share | XBRL | share | Leans |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Self-employed | 64 | 2% | – | – | outside top 12 |
| 2-10 employees | 252 | 7% | 4 | 4% | Model Context Protocol |
| 11-50 employees | 490 | 13% | 4 | 4% | Model Context Protocol |
| 51-200 employees | 800 | 22% | 17 | 16% | Model Context Protocol |
| 201-500 employees | 548 | 15% | 16 | 15% | even |
| 501-1000 employees | 408 | 11% | 11 | 10% | even |
| 1001-5000 employees | 612 | 16% | 24 | 23% | XBRL |
| 5001-10000 employees | 160 | 4% | 6 | 6% | even |
| 10,001+ employees | 376 | 10% | 24 | 23% | XBRL |
| Segment | Model Context Protocol | share | XBRL | share | Leans |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Technology & software | 1,931 | 52% | 19 | 18% | Model Context Protocol |
| Business & finance services | 781 | 21% | 35 | 33% | XBRL |
| Manufacturing & industry | 276 | 7% | 22 | 21% | XBRL |
| Media & content | 145 | 4% | 3 | 3% | even |
| Commerce & trade | 99 | 3% | 5 | 5% | XBRL |
| Consumer services & leisure | 85 | 2% | – | – | outside top 12 |
| Utilities & infrastructure | 85 | 2% | 8 | 8% | XBRL |
| Public, community & associations | 82 | 2% | 3 | 3% | even |
| Health care | 67 | 2% | 2 | 2% | even |
| Transport, logistics & rental | 50 | 1% | 2 | 2% | even |
| Property & construction | 48 | 1% | 5 | 5% | XBRL |
| Automotive | 30 | 1% | 1 | 1% | even |
| Hospitality & travel | – | – | 1 | 1% | outside top 12 |
| Segment | Model Context Protocol | share | XBRL | share | Leans |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| United States | 2,391 | 64% | 75 | 71% | XBRL |
| United Kingdom | 285 | 8% | 5 | 5% | Model Context Protocol |
| Germany | 212 | 6% | – | – | outside top 12 |
| Canada | 106 | 3% | 2 | 2% | even |
| France | 103 | 3% | – | – | outside top 12 |
| India | 52 | 1% | 3 | 3% | even |
| Netherlands | 52 | 1% | – | – | outside top 12 |
| Sweden | 42 | 1% | – | – | outside top 12 |
| Australia | 41 | 1% | 1 | 1% | even |
| Spain | 33 | 1% | – | – | outside top 12 |
| Brazil | 32 | 1% | – | – | outside top 12 |
| Poland | 32 | 1% | – | – | outside top 12 |
| Singapore | – | – | 3 | 3% | outside top 12 |
| Finland | – | – | 2 | 2% | outside top 12 |
| Norway | – | – | 2 | 2% | outside top 12 |
| Romania | – | – | 2 | 2% | outside top 12 |
| United Arab Emirates | – | – | 1 | 1% | outside top 12 |
| Belgium | – | – | 1 | 1% | outside top 12 |
| Switzerland | – | – | 1 | 1% | outside top 12 |
| Segment | Model Context Protocol | share | XBRL | share | Leans |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Data & AI | 4,805 | 33% | 6 | 2% | Model Context Protocol |
| Software engineering | 4,101 | 28% | 12 | 4% | Model Context Protocol |
| IT operations & business systems | 1,440 | 10% | 3 | 1% | Model Context Protocol |
| Product, program & project management | 659 | 5% | 5 | 2% | Model Context Protocol |
| Sales | 461 | 3% | – | – | outside top 12 |
| Engineering (non-software) | 205 | 1% | – | – | outside top 12 |
| Marketing & communications | 171 | 1% | 2 | 1% | even |
| Customer service & success | 146 | 1% | 1 | 0% | even |
| Design & UX | 109 | 1% | – | – | outside top 12 |
| General management & consulting | 76 | 1% | 2 | 1% | even |
| Finance & accounting | 63 | 0% | 231 | 75% | XBRL |
| Business development & strategy | 62 | 0% | – | – | outside top 12 |
| Quality, safety & environment | – | – | 6 | 2% | outside top 12 |
| Legal, compliance & risk | – | – | 5 | 2% | outside top 12 |
| Administration & office | – | – | 3 | 1% | outside top 12 |
| Hospitality and food service | – | – | 1 | 0% | outside top 12 |
The companies behind each column
Companies using Model Context Protocol →
Companies using XBRL →
api specs data formats ranked →
Quote the sentence with the date and the link. The numbers change daily; the link always shows the current ones.
XBRL is named by 106 companies in job postings and Model Context Protocol by 3,710; 0 name both. (Breaknorm, 30 October 2026, https://breaknorm.co/compare/model-context-protocol-vs-xbrl)
Read from the source, not self-reported
Every number on this page can be traced to a page we crawled or a posting we read. Full methodology →
- Job postingsRead hourly from career sites. A tool counts when the employer's own text names it as the team's system; both tools can count for one company.
- Website and DNSScripts and embeds on the company's pages, plus SPF, DKIM, MX and CNAME records of its domain that point at the vendor.
- SegmentsCountry, size and industry from the company profile built from its website.
- Not a reviewNo ratings, prices or feature claims. For those, read the vendors.
Model Context Protocol vs XBRL: questions
Which is more used, Model Context Protocol or XBRL?
By companies naming it in their own job postings, Model Context Protocol (3,710) over XBRL (106). By website-and-DNS footprint, XBRL (0 vs 0), because its scripts and mail records sit on many small company sites.
Who chooses Model Context Protocol?
42% of Model Context Protocol companies have 2 to 200 employees, against 24% for XBRL. 31% of Model Context Protocol companies have over 1,000 employees, against 51% for XBRL.
Do companies run both?
0 companies name both in their postings, usually Model Context Protocol in marketing and XBRL in sales, or during a migration.
Where do these numbers come from?
From the employer's own text in job postings read hourly from career sites, and from scripts found on company websites in our crawl. No vendor data, no surveys.
Get either list your way
The same data as a search, over MCP and the API, as bulk files, or pushed to you as it changes.
Every company on either tool,
with the person who owns it
Filter on Model Context Protocol or XBRL. Start free, no card.