Arizona vs Wisconsin on USAspending: $13.1B vs $10.0B

Arizona’s $13.1B versus Wisconsin’s $10.0B

These figures are USAspending.gov obligations, not Treasury outlays. Arizona’s $13.1B is about 1.3 times Wisconsin’s $10.0B. The comparison scores place of performance in the award file. Among two mid-size states with the same lead industry, the award-dollar lead belongs to Arizona in this aggregate.

Award counts run the other way. Wisconsin has 181,419 awards; Arizona has 118,504. Wisconsin’s file is busier in rows and lighter in dollars. Arizona’s $13.1B on 118,504 actions implies a heavier typical booking than Wisconsin’s $10.0B on 181,419 records. Dollars and rows do not tell the same story.

Two high-intensity readings: $435.71 and $407.20

Arizona’s 7,582,384 residents exceed Wisconsin’s 5,960,975. After dividing the obligation stocks by those Census counts, Arizona shows $435.71 per capita and Wisconsin shows $407.20. Intensity favors Arizona, but both readings sit in a high band. This pair is not a high-versus-low intensity contest.

A $435.71 per-person reading in Arizona on 7,582,384 residents is an intensity fact attached to $13.1B. Wisconsin’s $407.20 on 5,960,975 residents is attached to $10.0B. This table scores USAspending place of performance, not GDP. Similar intensity can still sit on unequal stocks.

The same lead industry on two different files

Arizona’s top industry is direct health and medical insurance carriers. Wisconsin’s top industry is also direct health and medical insurance carriers. That shared label marks the largest NAICS slice in each state’s file, not a claim that the two files are identical. The same grouping can sit on $13.1B and $10.0B with different row counts.

A shared health-insurance lead does not erase the rest of either file. Arizona’s 118,504 awards and Wisconsin’s 181,419 awards contain many other industries. Mix can still differ under the same top label. Neither state’s insurance-carrier slice explains every dollar.

FY2026: $3.3B in Arizona vs $2.4B in Wisconsin

FY2026 obligations are $3.3B in Arizona and $2.4B in Wisconsin. Arizona’s latest year remains ahead, matching the direction of the $13.1B versus $10.0B stacked ranking. Recency questions belong in FY2026. The stacked totals remain the full USAspending.gov aggregate this comparison uses. Both years are obligations, not outlays.

Do not divide those FY figures by Arizona’s 118,504 or Wisconsin’s 181,419 all-years awards. Per capita of $435.71 on 7,582,384 residents versus $407.20 on 5,960,975 residents is the intensity comparison. Both cuts are USAspending.gov obligations.

Shared mix label, inverted row count

Arizona leads stacked dollars ($13.1B vs $10.0B), population (7,582,384 vs 5,960,975), per capita ($435.71 vs $407.20), and FY2026 ($3.3B vs $2.4B). Wisconsin leads award count (181,419 vs 118,504). The shared top industry — direct health and medical insurance carriers — is the distinctive mix fact in this pair.

Use the Arizona and Wisconsin hubs for agencies and recipients. Keep $13.1B and $10.0B labeled as obligations. A matching NAICS lead is not a matching file.

How to use the Arizona and Wisconsin hubs

Both states’ top industry is direct health and medical insurance carriers, yet Arizona’s $13.1B on 118,504 awards is not Wisconsin’s $10.0B on 181,419 awards. A shared lead label is not a shared file. Open the Arizona hub and the Wisconsin hub for agencies and recipients. Per capita of $435.71 versus $407.20 on 7,582,384 and 5,960,975 residents sits in the same high band.

FY2026’s $3.3B versus $2.4B follows Arizona’s stacked lead. These are USAspending.gov obligations, not outlays. Do not divide latest-year dollars by all-years award counts. Place of performance can differ from where the paying agency sits. Use the hubs for the next drill-down. Keep $13.1B and $10.0B labeled as obligations so a matching NAICS lead is not treated as identical mix across the rest of either file.

Arizona versus Wisconsin shares a top industry — direct health and medical insurance carriers — on $13.1B and $10.0B. Award counts of 118,504 versus 181,419 still differ. FY2026 of $3.3B versus $2.4B follows Arizona. Per capita of $435.71 versus $407.20 on 7,582,384 and 5,960,975 residents sits in the same high band. Obligations remain the unit. The Arizona and Wisconsin hubs hold the next tables. A matching NAICS lead is not a matching file. Shared health-insurance leads on $13.1B and $10.0B do not erase 118,504 versus 181,419 awards. FY2026’s $3.3B versus $2.4B follows Arizona. Per capita of $435.71 versus $407.20 on 7,582,384 and 5,960,975 residents stays in one high band.

Questions

Which state has more federal spending, Arizona or Wisconsin?

Arizona leads in USAspending.gov obligations: $13.1B versus Wisconsin’s $10.0B. Wisconsin has more awards (181,419 vs 118,504). Populations are 7,582,384 in Arizona and 5,960,975 in Wisconsin. Spending per capita is $435.71 in Arizona and $407.20 in Wisconsin. FY2026 obligations are $3.3B and $2.4B. These are obligations, not Treasury outlays.

Do Arizona and Wisconsin share the same top federal-award industry?

Yes. Both states’ top industry is direct health and medical insurance carriers. That shared label sits on different stocks: $13.1B in Arizona and $10.0B in Wisconsin. Award counts still differ (118,504 vs 181,419). A matching lead industry is not a matching file. Per capita is $435.71 versus $407.20.

Why does Wisconsin have more awards than Arizona but fewer dollars?

Wisconsin logs 181,419 awards on $10.0B. Arizona logs 118,504 awards on $13.1B. Wisconsin’s file is busier in rows and lighter in dollars, which implies a smaller typical booking. Populations are 5,960,975 and 7,582,384. FY2026 still favors Arizona ($3.3B vs $2.4B) on recency.

Are Arizona vs Wisconsin figures Treasury outlays?

No. SpendingVault uses USAspending.gov obligations. Outlays are cash payments and can lag. The $13.1B and $10.0B stacked totals and FY2026 amounts of $3.3B and $2.4B measure award commitments by place of performance, not Monthly Treasury Statement payments. Place of performance can differ from where the paying agency sits.