Arizona vs Pennsylvania on USAspending: $13.1B vs $28.1B

Pennsylvania’s $28.1B stock versus Arizona’s $13.1B

These figures are USAspending.gov obligations, not Treasury outlays. Pennsylvania’s $28.1B is about 2.1 times Arizona’s $13.1B. The comparison scores place of performance in the award file, not cash that has already left the Treasury. Anyone reading this pair as a simple size contest should stop at that stock first: Pennsylvania holds the larger all-years total.

Award counts widen the gap further. Pennsylvania logs 1,468,918 awards; Arizona logs 118,504. That is a much busier file in Pennsylvania on a dollar stock that is already larger. Arizona’s smaller row count on $13.1B implies a heavier typical booking, while Pennsylvania’s 1,468,918 actions spread $28.1B across many more records.

Fewer people in Arizona, higher dollars per resident

Arizona’s 7,582,384 residents sit well below Pennsylvania’s 13,078,751. After dividing the obligation stocks by those Census counts, Arizona shows $435.71 per capita and Pennsylvania shows $239.68. Intensity runs the opposite direction from the $13.1B versus $28.1B ranking. Population does not explain who leads the stacked file.

A $435.71 per-person reading in Arizona on 7,582,384 residents is an intensity fact, not a claim about state budgets or GDP. Pennsylvania’s $239.68 on 13,078,751 residents is still a large federal footprint; it is simply thinner per person. This table does not convert obligations into household income or tax incidence.

Health-insurance carriers in Arizona, botanicals in Pennsylvania

Arizona’s top industry is direct health and medical insurance carriers. Pennsylvania’s is medicinal and botanical manufacturing. Those labels mark the largest NAICS slice in each state’s file, not a full industrial census. Insurance-carrier awards and botanical-manufacturing awards are different lead products sitting on $13.1B and $28.1B.

A health-insurance lead in Arizona can concentrate large medical-coverage actions inside a 118,504-award file. A botanical-manufacturing lead in Pennsylvania sits inside 1,468,918 awards, so that slice is one grouping among a much thicker record set. Mix and scale both differ. Neither industry name explains every dollar in either state.

FY2026: Arizona’s $3.3B edges Pennsylvania’s $3.1B

FY2026 obligations are $3.3B in Arizona and $3.1B in Pennsylvania. The latest year reverses the stacked ranking. Arizona’s $3.3B is a large slice of its $13.1B stock; Pennsylvania’s $3.1B is a smaller slice of $28.1B. Recency questions belong in FY2026. The all-years totals remain the comparison’s headline stock.

Do not divide those FY2026 amounts by Arizona’s 118,504 or Pennsylvania’s 1,468,918 all-years awards. Those row counts cover the stacked file, not a single fiscal year. Both cuts are USAspending.gov obligations. Outlays can lag award dates, so a $3.3B versus $3.1B latest-year reading is a commitment scoreboard, not a cash-flow statement.

Four rankings that do not agree

Pennsylvania leads stacked dollars ($28.1B vs $13.1B) and award count (1,468,918 vs 118,504) and population (13,078,751 vs 7,582,384). Arizona leads per capita ($435.71 vs $239.68) and FY2026 dollars ($3.3B vs $3.1B). Those splits are why Arizona versus Pennsylvania cannot be reduced to “larger state, larger file.”

Use the Arizona and Pennsylvania state hubs for agency and recipient tables. Keep every dollar labeled as obligations. Direct health and medical insurance carriers versus medicinal and botanical manufacturing is mix, not a verdict on either economy.

How to use the Arizona and Pennsylvania hubs

The comparison table is a scoreboard of USAspending.gov obligations by place of performance. It does not convert $13.1B or $28.1B into cash paid, and it does not assign those dollars to households in Arizona or Pennsylvania. Readers who want agencies, recipients, or program tables should open the Arizona hub and the Pennsylvania hub rather than treating this pair page as a full ledger. Direct health and medical insurance carriers versus medicinal and botanical manufacturing remains a lead-slice fact, not a census of either file.

FY2026’s $3.3B versus $3.1B is useful when the question is recency. The stacked $13.1B versus $28.1B is useful when the question is stock. Award counts of 118,504 and 1,468,918 belong to the stacked file; they should not be divided into a single fiscal year. Census counts of 7,582,384 and 13,078,751 support the $435.71 versus $239.68 per-capita cut and nothing else. Keep every figure labeled as obligations. Outlays can lag award dates, and a later Treasury payment does not rewrite this ranking.

Questions

Which state has more federal spending, Arizona or Pennsylvania?

Pennsylvania leads in stacked USAspending.gov obligations: $28.1B versus Arizona’s $13.1B. Arizona has fewer awards (118,504 vs 1,468,918) and fewer people (7,582,384 vs 13,078,751). Spending per capita is $435.71 in Arizona and $239.68 in Pennsylvania. FY2026 obligations are $3.3B in Arizona and $3.1B in Pennsylvania. These are obligations, not Treasury outlays.

Why is Arizona’s per-capita federal spending higher than Pennsylvania’s?

Arizona’s $13.1B on 7,582,384 residents produces $435.71 per capita. Pennsylvania’s $28.1B on 13,078,751 residents produces $239.68. Arizona also books fewer awards (118,504 vs 1,468,918), so the intensity gap is dollars relative to population, not more rows. FY2026 still favors Arizona ($3.3B vs $3.1B) even though Pennsylvania holds the larger stock.

What industries lead Arizona and Pennsylvania federal awards?

Arizona’s top industry is direct health and medical insurance carriers. Pennsylvania’s is medicinal and botanical manufacturing. Those slices sit on $13.1B and $28.1B in obligations. They mark the largest grouping in each file, not every award in either state. Award counts are 118,504 in Arizona and 1,468,918 in Pennsylvania.

Are Arizona vs Pennsylvania figures Treasury outlays?

No. SpendingVault uses USAspending.gov obligations. Outlays are cash payments and can lag. The $13.1B and $28.1B stacked totals and FY2026 amounts of $3.3B and $3.1B measure award commitments by place of performance, not Monthly Treasury Statement payments. Place of performance can differ from where the paying agency sits.