Connecticut vs Oklahoma on USAspending: $7.5B vs $5.5B

Matched aircraft-parts labels, unmatched stocks

These figures are USAspending.gov obligations, not Treasury outlays. Connecticut’s $7.5B stock sits $2.0 billion above Oklahoma’s $5.5B. Place of performance in the award file is the scoring rule. The pair is unusual because the top industry label is identical—other aircraft parts and auxiliary equipment manufacturing—while dollars, rows, and intensity still diverge.

Connecticut logs 94,990 awards on $7.5B. Oklahoma logs 50,460 awards on $5.5B. Oklahoma’s thinner file on a still-large stock implies a heavier typical booking. Shared industry family does not mean shared paperwork volume. The $7.5B versus $5.5B ranking is a dollar ranking, not a row ranking.

Two other-aircraft-parts leads sit on $7,483,687,896 and $5,456,947,205. People of 3,675,069 versus 4,095,393 are close, which is why $266.81 versus $205.98 is a high-versus-higher intensity contest rather than a high-versus-low one. Award rows of 94,990 versus 50,460 and FY2026 of $980,534,818 versus $843,573,742 stay with Connecticut. Matching NAICS labels does not match stacked stocks.

Two high-intensity states: $266.81 vs $205.98

Connecticut’s 3,675,069 residents against $7.5B produce $266.81 per capita. Oklahoma’s 4,095,393 residents against $5.5B produce $205.98. Both readings are high. Connecticut still leads intensity even though Oklahoma has slightly more people. This pair is not a high-versus-low contest; it is high versus higher.

A $266.81 per-person reading is an intensity fact attached to $7.5B, not a household check. Oklahoma’s $205.98 is attached to $5.5B. This table scores USAspending place of performance, not GDP. Similar Census counts of 3,675,069 and 4,095,393 make the $2.0 billion stacked gap the main driver of the per-capita split.

Two aircraft-parts files

Connecticut’s top industry is other aircraft parts and auxiliary equipment manufacturing. Oklahoma’s top industry is also other aircraft parts and auxiliary equipment manufacturing. Those identical NAICS labels mark the largest grouping in each state’s file. They are not a full industrial census. Aircraft-parts awards are the lead product on both stocks; they are not the entire $7.5B or $5.5B.

An aircraft-parts lead inside Connecticut’s 94,990-award file can concentrate auxiliary equipment without explaining every dollar. The same label inside Oklahoma’s 50,460-award file can sit on a different mix of other industries. Matching top slices does not make the files interchangeable. Neither label explains every dollar.

FY2026: $980.5M in Connecticut vs $843.6M in Oklahoma

FY2026 obligations are $980,534,818 in Connecticut and $843,573,742 in Oklahoma. Connecticut remains ahead in the latest year, in the same direction as the stacked ranking. Recency questions belong in FY2026. The $7.5B 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 Connecticut’s 94,990 or Oklahoma’s 50,460 all-years awards. Per capita of $266.81 on 3,675,069 residents versus $205.98 on 4,095,393 residents is the intensity comparison. FY2026 answers how the latest year booked. Stacked totals still favor Connecticut.

Connecticut’s $980,534,818 FY2026 versus Oklahoma’s $843,573,742 stays with $7,483,687,896 versus $5,456,947,205. 94,990 awards versus 50,460 awards and 3,675,069 residents versus 4,095,393 residents produce $266.81 versus $205.98. Two aircraft-parts leads still leave two files. Keep FY2026 separate from the stacked stocks. Both cuts are obligations.

A shared label on two high-intensity files

Connecticut leads stacked dollars ($7.5B vs $5.5B), award count (94,990 vs 50,460), per capita ($266.81 vs $205.98), and FY2026 ($980.5M vs $843.6M). Oklahoma leads population by a thin margin (4,095,393 vs 3,675,069). The distinctive fact is the matched aircraft-parts lead on files that otherwise do not match.

Other aircraft parts and auxiliary equipment manufacturing in both states is mix inside files that contain many other industries. Use the Connecticut and Oklahoma hubs for agencies and recipients. Keep both stocks labeled as USAspending.gov obligations.

Two aircraft-parts files are still two files

Other aircraft parts and auxiliary equipment manufacturing leads both Connecticut and Oklahoma. That shared label sits on $7,483,687,896 versus $5,456,947,205, on 94,990 awards versus 50,460, and on 3,675,069 residents versus 4,095,393. Per capita of $266.81 versus $205.98 is high in both states. FY2026 of $980,534,818 versus $843,573,742 stays with Connecticut.

Matching top slices does not make the files interchangeable. Similar Census counts make this pair a useful intensity comparison inside one industry family. Both stocks are USAspending.gov obligations by place of performance, not outlays. Open the state hubs for the rest of the mix.

Questions

Which state has more federal spending, Connecticut or Oklahoma?

Connecticut leads in stacked USAspending.gov obligations: $7,483,687,896 versus Oklahoma’s $5,456,947,205. Connecticut has more awards (94,990 vs 50,460). Oklahoma has slightly more people (4,095,393 vs 3,675,069). Spending per capita is $266.81 in Connecticut and $205.98 in Oklahoma. FY2026 obligations are $980.5M and $843.6M. These are obligations, not Treasury outlays.

Do Connecticut and Oklahoma have the same top federal industry?

Yes. Both files lead with other aircraft parts and auxiliary equipment manufacturing. That shared NAICS label sits on $7.5B in Connecticut and $5.5B in Oklahoma. Award counts still differ: 94,990 versus 50,460. Matching top slices does not make the files the same size. Per capita is $266.81 versus $205.98.

Are Connecticut and Oklahoma both high per-capita states?

Yes on this table. Connecticut shows $266.81 per capita on 3,675,069 residents. Oklahoma shows $205.98 on 4,095,393 residents. Both readings are high. Connecticut still leads intensity and stacked dollars ($7.5B vs $5.5B). FY2026 is $980.5M versus $843.6M.

Are Connecticut vs Oklahoma figures Treasury outlays?

No. SpendingVault uses USAspending.gov obligations. Outlays are cash payments and can lag. The $7.5B and $5.5B stacked totals and FY2026 amounts of $980.5M and $843.6M measure award commitments by place of performance, not Monthly Treasury Statement payments.