Arizona vs Texas on USAspending: $13.1B vs $72.7B

Arizona’s $435.71 intensity vs Texas’s $686.10

Spending per capita is $435.71 in Arizona and $686.10 in Texas. That intensity ranking does not have to match the stacked dollar ranking of $13.1B versus $72.7B. When people (7,582,384 vs 31,290,831) diverge faster or slower than obligations, per capita flips. These figures are USAspending.gov obligations by place of performance, not Treasury outlays. Cash payments can lag award dates. Headquarters can differ from the state coded on the award.

Arizona’s 118,504 awards on $13.1B are sparse next to Texas’s 530,634, which is one reason intensity can look closer than stock. Intensity is stacked obligations divided by Census counts. It is not FY2026 alone. It is not GDP. It is not a household check.

A health-insurance peak against a pharma peak

Award counts are 118,504 in Arizona and 530,634 in Texas. Rows can follow dollars, follow people, or follow neither. A flip pair often shows that third path. Direct health and medical insurance carriers as Arizona’s lead slice can mean large coverage awards on a smaller action count. Pharmaceutical preparation manufacturing as Texas’s lead slice sits on a much larger dollar stock and a larger Census count.

Arizona’s top industry is direct health and medical insurance carriers. Texas’s top industry is pharmaceutical preparation manufacturing. Mix can help explain a heavier typical action, but it does not compute $435.71 or $686.10. Those ratios are arithmetic on $13.1B, $72.7B, 7,582,384, and 31,290,831.

FY2026: $3.3B vs $21.5B

FY2026 obligations are $3.3B and $21.5B. Recency can narrow a stacked gap without erasing an intensity flip, or it can restock the same leaders. Keep the latest year separate from $13.1B versus $72.7B.

Do not divide FY2026 amounts by 118,504 or 530,634 all-years awards. These figures are USAspending.gov obligations by place of performance, not Treasury outlays. Cash payments can lag award dates. Headquarters can differ from the state coded on the award.

Fewer Arizona awards, heavier typical bookings

The useful sentence for a flip pair is not “who is bigger.” It is which ranking a reader needs: stock ($13.1B vs $72.7B), intensity ($435.71 vs $686.10), rows (118,504 vs 530,634), or recency ($3.3B vs $21.5B).

Use the comparison hub for the side-by-side tables, then the Arizona and Texas state hubs for agencies and recipients. direct health and medical insurance carriers versus pharmaceutical preparation manufacturing remains the mix note on those rankings.

How to read Arizona against Texas

Hold the inversion: the state that trails $13.1B versus $72.7B may still lead $435.71 versus $686.10, or the reverse. Populations of 7,582,384 and 31,290,831 are the denominators that make that possible.

FY2026 ($3.3B vs $21.5B) is recency on the same USAspending.gov obligations series. Outlays are a different series. Use the comparison hub for the side-by-side tables, then the Arizona and Texas state hubs for agencies and recipients.

Closer intensity, still a $13.1B vs $72.7B stock

Arizona’s $435.71 per capita on 7,582,384 residents versus Texas’s $686.10 on 31,290,831 residents is a narrower intensity gap than the $13.1B versus $72.7B stock gap. Direct health and medical insurance carriers versus pharmaceutical preparation manufacturing is mix on 118,504 versus 530,634 awards. FY2026’s $3.3B versus $21.5B is recency.

Arizona’s latest year is a large slice of its $13.1B file. Texas’s $21.5B is a large slice of $72.7B. Both years are USAspending.gov obligations, not outlays. The Arizona and Texas hubs carry the agency and recipient tables behind those statewide cuts.

Arizona versus Texas on USAspending.gov is $13.1B versus $72.7B in stacked obligations, 118,504 versus 530,634 awards, 7,582,384 versus 31,290,831 residents, $435.71 versus $686.10 per capita, and $3.3B versus $21.5B in FY2026. Top industries remain direct health and medical insurance carriers and pharmaceutical preparation manufacturing. Those cuts are the packet.

Do not divide FY2026 dollars by all-years award counts. Do not treat $435.71 and $686.10 as household income. Do not treat direct health and medical insurance carriers or pharmaceutical preparation manufacturing as a complete industrial census. Place of performance can differ from headquarters. Cash outlays can lag. After the comparison table, the Arizona and Texas state hubs hold agencies and recipients.

Questions

Which has more federal spending, Arizona or Texas?

Arizona shows $13.1B in USAspending.gov obligations; Texas shows $72.7B. Award counts are 118,504 and 530,634. Populations are 7,582,384 and 31,290,831. Spending per capita is $435.71 versus $686.10. FY2026 obligations are $3.3B and $21.5B. These are obligations, not Treasury outlays. These figures are USAspending.gov obligations, not Treasury outlays.

What industries lead Arizona and Texas federal awards?

Arizona’s top industry is direct health and medical insurance carriers. Texas’s top industry is pharmaceutical preparation manufacturing. Those slices sit on $13.1B and $72.7B in USAspending.gov obligations and on 118,504 versus 530,634 awards. They mark the largest grouping in each file, not every award.

How do Arizona and Texas compare on spending per capita?

Spending per capita is $435.71 in Arizona on 7,582,384 residents and $686.10 in Texas on 31,290,831 residents. Those ratios use stacked USAspending.gov obligations of $13.1B and $72.7B, not FY2026 alone and not GDP. These figures are USAspending.gov obligations, not Treasury outlays.

Are Arizona vs Texas figures Treasury outlays?

No. The $13.1B and $72.7B stacked totals, and FY2026 amounts of $3.3B and $21.5B, are USAspending.gov obligations by place of performance. Outlays are cash payments and can lag. Award counts are 118,504 and 530,634. These figures are USAspending.gov obligations, not Treasury outlays.