Alaska vs South Carolina on USAspending: $3.49B vs $3.85B

South Carolina’s extra people, Alaska’s extra intensity

South Carolina’s $3.85B is about 1.11 times Alaska’s $3.49B. Population is about 7.40 times: 5,478,831 versus 740,133. People outrun dollars by a wide margin, which is the setup for Alaska’s $532.17 per capita against South Carolina’s $83.98. Cite those ratios as packet figures beside the Census counts.

Award counts belong to South Carolina, 129,440 versus 25,423, about 5.1 times as many rows on a modestly larger stock. The Carolina file is busy. Alaska’s 25,423 actions on $3.49B are fewer and still sit beside the $532.17 reading on a 740,133 Census count.

FY2026 stays with South Carolina on dollars, $460.1M versus $393.9M. Stock and recency lean South Carolina; intensity leans Alaska. Alaska’s 740,133 residents versus South Carolina’s 5,478,831 is a sevenfold Census gap that $3.49B versus $3.85B does not follow, which is why $532.17 versus $83.98 is the ranking Alaska wins.

Construction in Alaska, biological products in South Carolina

Alaska’s lead NAICS is commercial and institutional building construction. South Carolina’s lead NAICS is biological product (except diagnostic) manufacturing. Those peaks sit on $3.49B and $3.85B. A construction lead is a first filter on the Alaska mix; a biologics lead is a first filter on the Carolina mix.

The 25,423 Alaska awards and 129,440 South Carolina awards include many actions outside those labels. Use the Alaska and South Carolina state hubs for agencies and recipients. Both peaks are USAspending.gov obligation mixes.

FY2026: South Carolina’s $460.1M versus Alaska’s $393.9M

Fiscal year 2026 obligations are $460.1M in South Carolina and $393.9M in Alaska. Recency preserves South Carolina’s stacked dollar lead without opening a large gap. Treat the year as a recency slice of obligations, not as Treasury cash.

Do not divide $460.1M or $393.9M by 129,440 or 25,423 all-years awards. Spending per capita of $83.98 and $532.17 already sits beside Census counts of 5,478,831 and 740,133 in the packet.

740,133 residents and a $532.17 reading

Alaska’s 740,133 residents are a small denominator. $3.49B on that map still trails South Carolina’s $3.85B, but $532.17 beats $83.98 by a wide margin. Headcount is not intensity. Award volume of 25,423 versus 129,440 is South Carolina’s win on rows.

Keep those per-capita figures labeled as Census-based packet figures on USAspending.gov obligations. They are not outlays per resident.

How to read Alaska versus South Carolina

Read South Carolina first on stacked dollars ($3.85B vs $3.49B), awards (129,440 vs 25,423), population (5,478,831 vs 740,133), and FY2026 ($460.1M vs $393.9M). Read Alaska first on intensity ($532.17 vs $83.98). Note construction versus biological products. All cuts are obligations.

The comparison hub holds the tables. The Alaska and South Carolina hubs hold agencies and recipients. Outlays are a different series.

Seven times the people on a 1.11-times stock

Alaska’s $3.49B and South Carolina’s $3.85B are USAspending.gov obligations. Census counts of 740,133 and 5,478,831 are the ranking that stretches. Spending per capita of $532.17 and $83.98 follows that stretch. Commercial and institutional building construction versus biological product manufacturing is the industry split. FY2026’s $393.9M versus $460.1M stays with South Carolina on recency.

Award counts of 25,423 and 129,440 go to South Carolina on rows. Use the Alaska and South Carolina hubs for agencies and recipients. Outlays are a different series. The comparison hub is the paired obligation view.

South Carolina’s 129,440 awards and 5,478,831 residents look larger. Alaska’s $3.49B versus $3.85B is a modest stock trail. Per capita of $532.17 versus $83.98 is not modest. FY2026 of $393.9M versus $460.1M stays with South Carolina. Construction versus biological products is mix. Treat the ratios as packet figures beside 740,133 and 5,478,831 residents.

Questions

Does Alaska or South Carolina have more federal spending?

South Carolina leads stacked USAspending.gov obligations $3.85B to Alaska’s $3.49B. Alaska leads spending per capita, $532.17 versus $83.98, on 740,133 residents against South Carolina’s 5,478,831. South Carolina has far more awards (129,440 vs 25,423). FY2026 obligations are $393.9M in Alaska and $460.1M in South Carolina.

Why is Alaska’s per-capita figure so much higher?

The packet reports $532.17 per capita in Alaska on 740,133 residents and $83.98 in South Carolina on 5,478,831. Stacked stocks are close ($3.49B vs $3.85B). Award counts are 25,423 versus 129,440. These figures are USAspending.gov obligations, not outlays.

What industries lead in Alaska and South Carolina?

Alaska’s top industry is commercial and institutional building construction. South Carolina’s is biological product (except diagnostic) manufacturing. Those labels are the largest NAICS slices on $3.49B and $3.85B. Award counts are 25,423 in Alaska and 129,440 in South Carolina.

Are Alaska vs South Carolina figures Treasury outlays?

No. The $3.49B and $3.85B totals, and FY2026 amounts of $393.9M and $460.1M, are USAspending.gov obligations. Outlays are cash payments and can lag. Spending per capita ($532.17 vs $83.98) uses Census population where present.