Georgia vs Wisconsin on USAspending: $9.7B vs $10.0B

Wisconsin’s $10.0B edges Georgia’s $9.7B

These figures are USAspending.gov obligations, not Treasury outlays. Wisconsin’s $10.0B exceeds Georgia’s $9.7B even though Georgia has 11,180,878 residents and Wisconsin has 5,960,975. Place of performance in the award file is not a population contest. The stacked ranking favors the smaller Great Lakes state in this aggregate.

Award counts run the other way. Georgia has 278,028 awards; Wisconsin has 181,419. Georgia’s file is busier in rows and lighter in dollars. Wisconsin’s file is heavier in dollars on fewer actions — a higher typical booking. The $10.0B versus $9.7B ranking is a dollar ranking, not a row ranking.

Wisconsin’s $407.20 versus Georgia’s $95.66

Georgia’s 11,180,878 residents nearly double Wisconsin’s 5,960,975. After dividing the obligation stocks by those Census counts, Wisconsin shows $407.20 per capita and Georgia shows $95.66. Intensity favors Wisconsin by about 4.3 times. Population is not the engine of this ranking.

A $95.66 per-person reading in Georgia on 11,180,878 residents is an intensity fact attached to $9.7B. Wisconsin’s $407.20 on 5,960,975 residents is attached to $10.0B. This table scores USAspending place of performance, not GDP. Georgia’s larger Census count does not produce a larger obligation stock.

Aircraft in Georgia, health insurers in Wisconsin

Georgia’s top industry is aircraft manufacturing. Wisconsin’s is direct health and medical insurance carriers. Those labels mark the largest NAICS slice in each state’s file, not a full industrial census. Aircraft awards and insurance-carrier awards are different lead products sitting on $9.7B and $10.0B.

An aircraft-manufacturing lead can concentrate large production awards inside Georgia’s 278,028-award file. A health-insurance lead can concentrate large medical-coverage actions inside Wisconsin’s 181,419-award file. Mix and scale both differ. Neither industry name explains every dollar.

FY2026: $1.1B in Georgia vs $2.4B in Wisconsin

FY2026 obligations are $1.1B in Georgia and $2.4B in Wisconsin. Wisconsin’s latest year remains well ahead, widening a stacked ranking that is otherwise close. 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 Georgia’s 278,028 or Wisconsin’s 181,419 all-years awards. Per capita of $95.66 on 11,180,878 residents versus $407.20 on 5,960,975 residents is the intensity comparison that already reverses the population ranking. Both cuts are USAspending.gov obligations.

A close stock with a wide intensity gap

Wisconsin leads stacked dollars ($10.0B vs $9.7B), per capita ($407.20 vs $95.66), and FY2026 ($2.4B vs $1.1B). Georgia leads award count (278,028 vs 181,419) and population (11,180,878 vs 5,960,975). Those splits are why Georgia versus Wisconsin cannot be reduced to two similar $10B files.

Aircraft manufacturing versus direct health and medical insurance carriers is mix inside files that contain many other industries. Use the Georgia and Wisconsin hubs for agencies and recipients. Keep $9.7B and $10.0B labeled as obligations.

How to use the Georgia and Wisconsin hubs

Georgia’s 11,180,878 residents do not produce a larger obligation stock than Wisconsin’s 5,960,975. The $9.7B versus $10.0B ranking, the $95.66 versus $407.20 per-capita cut, and FY2026’s $1.1B versus $2.4B all favor Wisconsin except population and award count (278,028 vs 181,419). Open the Georgia hub and the Wisconsin hub for agencies and recipients. Aircraft manufacturing versus direct health and medical insurance carriers is mix.

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 $9.7B and $10.0B labeled as obligations so a close stock is not mistaken for similar intensity. The intensity gap is the distinctive fact, not the thin dollar lead.

Georgia versus Wisconsin is 11,180,878 residents and $9.7B against 5,960,975 residents and $10.0B. Aircraft manufacturing and direct health and medical insurance carriers sit on 278,028 and 181,419 awards. FY2026 of $1.1B versus $2.4B favors Wisconsin. Per capita of $95.66 versus $407.20 is the intensity gap that matters more than the thin dollar lead. Obligations remain the unit. The Georgia and Wisconsin hubs hold the next tables. Georgia’s 11,180,878 residents and 278,028 awards still trail Wisconsin’s $10.0B, $407.20 per capita, and $2.4B in FY2026. Aircraft manufacturing versus health-insurance carriers is mix on $9.7B versus $10.0B. The intensity gap is the headline, not the thin dollar lead.

Questions

Which state has more federal spending, Georgia or Wisconsin?

Wisconsin leads in USAspending.gov obligations: $10.0B versus Georgia’s $9.7B. Georgia has more awards (278,028 vs 181,419) and more people (11,180,878 vs 5,960,975). Spending per capita is $95.66 in Georgia and $407.20 in Wisconsin. FY2026 obligations are $1.1B and $2.4B. These are obligations, not Treasury outlays.

Why does Wisconsin show more federal obligations than Georgia despite fewer people?

Wisconsin’s $10.0B on 5,960,975 residents produces $407.20 per capita. Georgia’s $9.7B on 11,180,878 residents produces $95.66. Georgia actually logs more awards (278,028 vs 181,419), so Wisconsin’s lead is dollars per action and intensity, not more rows. FY2026 also favors Wisconsin ($2.4B vs $1.1B).

What industries lead Georgia and Wisconsin federal awards?

Georgia’s top industry is aircraft manufacturing. Wisconsin’s is direct health and medical insurance carriers. Those slices sit on $9.7B and $10.0B in obligations. They mark the largest grouping in each file, not every award in either state. Award counts are 278,028 in Georgia and 181,419 in Wisconsin.

Are Georgia vs Wisconsin figures Treasury outlays?

No. SpendingVault uses USAspending.gov obligations. Outlays are cash payments and can lag. The $9.7B and $10.0B stacked totals and FY2026 amounts of $1.1B 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.