Alabama vs Oklahoma on USAspending: $7.7B vs $5.5B

Two mid-size states, one much thinner file

These figures are USAspending.gov obligations, not Treasury outlays. Alabama’s $7.7B stock sits $2.2 billion above Oklahoma’s $5.5B. Place of performance in the award file is the scoring rule. Populations of 5,157,699 and 4,095,393 put both states in a similar size band. The comparison is not a giant-versus-small contest on people.

Alabama logs 161,254 awards on $7.7B. Oklahoma logs 50,460 awards on $5.5B. Alabama’s busier file on a larger stock is consistent with more actions. Oklahoma’s thinner file implies a heavier typical booking. Dollars favor Alabama; intensity and FY2026 favor Oklahoma.

Alabama’s 5,157,699 residents and Oklahoma’s 4,095,393 residents are close enough that $116.81 versus $205.98 is a useful intensity comparison. Stacked dollars of $7,682,295,934 versus $5,456,947,205 still favor Alabama. Award rows of 161,254 versus 50,460 and FY2026 of $602,489,799 versus $843,573,742 are the other splits. Building construction versus aircraft parts is mix. Close Census counts do not make the files twins.

Oklahoma’s $205.98 versus Alabama’s $116.81

Alabama’s 5,157,699 residents against $7.7B produce $116.81 per capita. Oklahoma’s 4,095,393 residents against $5.5B produce $205.98. Intensity in Oklahoma is about 1.76 times Alabama’s even though Alabama holds the larger stacked total and the closer Census count.

A $205.98 per-person reading is an intensity fact attached to $5.5B, not a household check. Alabama’s $116.81 is attached to $7.7B. This table scores USAspending place of performance, not GDP. Similar populations can still hide a wide per-resident split when stocks are $7.7B versus $5.5B and rows are 161,254 versus 50,460.

Buildings in Alabama, aircraft parts in Oklahoma

Alabama’s top industry is commercial and institutional building construction. Oklahoma’s is other aircraft parts and auxiliary equipment manufacturing. Those NAICS labels mark the largest grouping in each state’s file. Building awards and aircraft-parts awards are different lead products sitting on $7.7B and $5.5B stocks.

A construction lead inside Alabama’s 161,254-award file can include large facility actions without explaining every dollar. An aircraft-parts lead inside Oklahoma’s 50,460-award file can concentrate auxiliary equipment without making Oklahoma a single-product state. Mix differs. Neither label is the entire stock.

FY2026: $602.5M in Alabama vs $843.6M in Oklahoma

FY2026 obligations are $602,489,799 in Alabama and $843,573,742 in Oklahoma. Oklahoma leads the latest year, reversing a stacked ranking that favors Alabama by $2.2 billion. Recency questions belong in FY2026. The $7.7B and $5.5B totals remain the full USAspending.gov aggregate this comparison uses. Both years are obligations, not outlays.

Do not divide those FY figures by Alabama’s 161,254 or Oklahoma’s 50,460 all-years awards. Per capita of $116.81 on 5,157,699 residents versus $205.98 on 4,095,393 residents is the intensity comparison. FY2026 is the cut that reverses the dollar ranking. Stacked totals still favor Alabama.

Oklahoma’s $843,573,742 FY2026 versus Alabama’s $602,489,799 already reverses $5,456,947,205 versus $7,682,295,934. 50,460 awards versus 161,254 awards and 4,095,393 residents versus 5,157,699 residents produce $205.98 versus $116.81. Close Census counts do not make a recency tie. Both years are USAspending.gov obligations, not outlays.

Close people, inverted recency

Alabama leads stacked dollars ($7.7B vs $5.5B), award count (161,254 vs 50,460), and population (5,157,699 vs 4,095,393). Oklahoma leads per capita ($205.98 vs $116.81) and FY2026 ($843.6M vs $602.5M). Those splits are why two mid-size states cannot be reduced to one ranking.

Commercial and institutional building construction versus other aircraft parts and auxiliary equipment manufacturing is mix inside files that contain many other industries. Use the Alabama and Oklahoma hubs for agencies and recipients. Keep both stocks labeled as USAspending.gov obligations.

Close people, different books

Alabama’s 5,157,699 residents and Oklahoma’s 4,095,393 residents are close enough that this pair is a useful intensity comparison. $7,682,295,934 versus $5,456,947,205 still favors Alabama on stacked dollars. $116.81 versus $205.98 favors Oklahoma on per capita. Award rows of 161,254 versus 50,460 and FY2026 of $602,489,799 versus $843,573,742 are the other splits.

Commercial and institutional building construction versus other aircraft parts and auxiliary equipment manufacturing is mix. Oklahoma’s thinner file on $5.5B is a heavier typical booking. Both stocks are USAspending.gov obligations by place of performance. Outlays are not in this table.

Questions

Which state has more federal spending, Alabama or Oklahoma?

Alabama leads in stacked USAspending.gov obligations: $7,682,295,934 versus Oklahoma’s $5,456,947,205. Alabama has more awards (161,254 vs 50,460) and more people (5,157,699 vs 4,095,393). Spending per capita is $116.81 in Alabama and $205.98 in Oklahoma. FY2026 obligations are $602.5M and $843.6M. These are obligations, not Treasury outlays.

Does Oklahoma outpace Alabama in the latest fiscal year?

Yes. FY2026 obligations are $843,573,742 in Oklahoma versus $602,489,799 in Alabama. The stacked ranking still favors Alabama ($7.7B vs $5.5B). Per capita is $205.98 versus $116.81. Award counts are 50,460 and 161,254. Populations are 4,095,393 and 5,157,699.

What industries lead Alabama and Oklahoma federal awards?

Alabama’s top industry is commercial and institutional building construction. Oklahoma’s is other aircraft parts and auxiliary equipment manufacturing. Those slices sit on $7.7B and $5.5B obligation stocks. They mark the largest grouping in each file, not every award in either state. Award counts are 161,254 in Alabama and 50,460 in Oklahoma.

Are Alabama vs Oklahoma figures Treasury outlays?

No. SpendingVault uses USAspending.gov obligations. Outlays are cash payments and can lag. The $7.7B and $5.5B stacked totals and FY2026 amounts of $602.5M and $843.6M measure award commitments by place of performance, not Monthly Treasury Statement payments.