Kansas vs Kentucky on USAspending: $2.91B vs $3.82B

Kentucky leads stock, rows, people, intensity, and recency

Kentucky’s $3.82B stacked total is about 1.31 times Kansas’s $2.91B. Kentucky’s Census count of 4,588,372 is about 1.54 times Kansas’s 2,970,606. Intensity follows dollars: $142.10 per capita in Kentucky and $67.40 in Kansas, about 2.11 times. Those ratios are packet figures of USAspending.gov obligations beside Census population. They are not outlays per resident.

Award counts also favor Kentucky, 140,157 against 71,423, about 1.96 times. Courier and express delivery work can generate many actions. Kansas’s 71,423 awards on $2.91B are not a thin file; they are simply the smaller of the two. Computer systems design as Kansas’s peak is a different mix than Kentucky’s courier peak.

This pair does not invert on the headline columns. The analytical interest is the industry split and the fact that Kentucky’s per-capita lead ($142.10 vs $67.40) is wider than its population lead.

Computer systems design versus couriers and express delivery

Kansas’s lead NAICS is computer systems design services. Kentucky’s lead NAICS is couriers and express delivery services. Systems-design work is Kansas’s peak on $2.91B. Courier traffic is Kentucky’s peak on $3.82B. The courier label helps explain Kentucky’s 140,157-row file. The systems-design label sits on Kansas’s 71,423-row file.

Those peaks are the largest NAICS slices, not complete profiles. The Kansas and Kentucky state hubs list agencies and recipients. Both peaks are USAspending.gov obligation mixes.

FY2026: $652.0M in Kentucky, $200.2M in Kansas

Fiscal year 2026 obligations are $652.0M in Kentucky and $200.2M in Kansas. Recency widens Kentucky’s lead. $652.0M is about 3.26 times $200.2M, versus 1.31 times on the all-years $3.82B versus $2.91B. Kentucky’s advantage is larger in the latest year than in the stacked file.

Read FY2026 as an obligation year slice. Do not divide $652.0M or $200.2M by 140,157 or 71,423 all-years awards. Spending per capita of $142.10 and $67.40 already uses Census counts of 4,588,372 and 2,970,606.

Kansas’s $2.91B is the smaller Plains file, not an empty one

Kansas still accounts for $2.91B, 71,423 awards, and 2,970,606 residents. Those are substantial figures. They trail Kentucky on every comparison column in this packet: $3.82B, 140,157 awards, 4,588,372 residents, $142.10 per capita, and $652.0M in FY2026. Trailing on five columns is not the same as missing from the USAspending.gov file.

Readers comparing Plains and Ohio Valley obligation stocks should keep Kansas’s computer-systems peak in view even while ranking Kentucky first on dollars.

Kentucky’s lead is complete on the headline columns: $3.82B versus $2.91B, $142.10 versus $67.40, 140,157 versus 71,423 awards, 4,588,372 versus 2,970,606 residents, and $652.0M versus $200.2M in FY2026. Kansas still belongs in the comparison because $2.91B and 71,423 awards are not a missing file. Couriers and express delivery services versus computer systems design services is the industry split that remains after the rankings line up. Do not collapse those peaks into a single story about which state “wins federal spending.” The figures are obligations from USAspending.gov.

How to read Kansas versus Kentucky

Read Kentucky first on stacked stock ($3.82B vs $2.91B), spending per capita ($142.10 vs $67.40), awards (140,157 vs 71,423), population (4,588,372 vs 2,970,606), and FY2026 ($652.0M vs $200.2M). Read Kansas as the smaller file with a computer-systems peak. Note couriers versus computer systems design. All cuts are obligations.

The comparison hub holds the tables. The Kansas and Kentucky hubs hold state detail. Outlays stay off this page.

Courier volume as a row generator, not a dollar guarantee

Kentucky’s couriers and express delivery services peak sits on 140,157 awards and $3.82B. Kansas’s computer systems design services peak sits on 71,423 awards and $2.91B. Courier traffic is a plausible generator of many actions. It also sits on the larger stock, the higher per-capita figure ($142.10 vs $67.40), the larger Census count (4,588,372 vs 2,970,606), and the larger FY2026 slice ($652.0M vs $200.2M). This pair does not invert. The courier label still explains the row gap better than it explains the dollar gap.

Kansas’s $2.91B remains a substantial Plains obligation stock. Same-direction rankings should not erase it. All cuts are USAspending.gov obligations. Outlays can lag both courier contracts and systems-design awards. The Kansas and Kentucky state hubs list agencies and recipients behind the peaks.

Questions

Does Kansas or Kentucky have more federal spending?

Kentucky leads stacked USAspending.gov obligations $3.82B to Kansas’s $2.91B. Kentucky also leads spending per capita, $142.10 versus $67.40, on 4,588,372 residents against Kansas’s 2,970,606. Kentucky has more awards (140,157 vs 71,423). FY2026 obligations are $652.0M in Kentucky and $200.2M in Kansas.

Why does Kentucky have so many more awards?

Kentucky’s award count is 140,157 against Kansas’s 71,423. Kentucky’s top industry is couriers and express delivery services. Stacked obligations also favor Kentucky, $3.82B to $2.91B. Spending per capita is $142.10 versus $67.40. These figures are USAspending.gov obligations, not outlays. Cite only the packet ratios; do not treat them as cash per resident or as a forecast.

What industries lead in Kansas and Kentucky?

Kansas’s top industry is computer systems design services. Kentucky’s is couriers and express delivery services. Those labels sit on $2.91B and $3.82B. Award counts are 71,423 in Kansas and 140,157 in Kentucky. Both mixes are USAspending.gov obligations. Those NAICS labels are the largest slices on the stacked stocks, not complete industrial profiles.

Are Kansas vs Kentucky figures Treasury outlays?

No. The $2.91B and $3.82B totals, and FY2026 amounts of $200.2M and $652.0M, are USAspending.gov obligations. Outlays are cash payments and can lag. Spending per capita ($67.40 vs $142.10) uses Census population where present. Spending per capita uses Census population where present and should not be read as cash per resident.