Massachusetts vs Pennsylvania on USAspending: $13.5B vs $28.1B

Pennsylvania’s $28.1B vs Massachusetts’s $13.5B

Spending per capita is $364.70 in Massachusetts and $239.68 in Pennsylvania. That intensity ranking does not have to match the stacked dollar ranking of $13.5B versus $28.1B. When people (7,136,171 vs 13,078,751) 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.

Pennsylvania wins stock and rows; Massachusetts wins intensity; FY2026 is the closest dollar cut ($2.6B vs $3.1B). Intensity is stacked obligations divided by Census counts. It is not FY2026 alone. It is not GDP. It is not a household check.

Aircraft engines vs medicinal manufacturing

Award counts are 294,824 in Massachusetts and 1,468,918 in Pennsylvania. Rows can follow dollars, follow people, or follow neither. A flip pair often shows that third path. Aircraft engine and engine parts manufacturing versus medicinal and botanical manufacturing is a propulsion-versus-pharma-adjacent split. Pennsylvania’s 1,468,918 awards dwarf Massachusetts’s 294,824 even though per capita runs the other way.

Massachusetts’s top industry is aircraft engine and engine parts manufacturing. Pennsylvania’s top industry is medicinal and botanical manufacturing. Mix can help explain a heavier typical action, but it does not compute $364.70 or $239.68. Those ratios are arithmetic on $13.5B, $28.1B, 7,136,171, and 13,078,751.

Massachusetts’s $364.70 vs Pennsylvania’s $239.68

FY2026 obligations are $2.6B and $3.1B. Recency can narrow a stacked gap without erasing an intensity flip, or it can restock the same leaders. Keep the latest year separate from $13.5B versus $28.1B.

Do not divide FY2026 amounts by 294,824 or 1,468,918 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.

1.47 million Pennsylvania awards vs 294,824

The useful sentence for a flip pair is not “who is bigger.” It is which ranking a reader needs: stock ($13.5B vs $28.1B), intensity ($364.70 vs $239.68), rows (294,824 vs 1,468,918), or recency ($2.6B vs $3.1B).

Use the comparison hub for the side-by-side tables, then the Massachusetts and Pennsylvania state hubs for agencies and recipients. aircraft engine and engine parts manufacturing versus medicinal and botanical manufacturing remains the mix note on those rankings.

How to read Massachusetts against Pennsylvania

Hold the inversion: the state that trails $13.5B versus $28.1B may still lead $364.70 versus $239.68, or the reverse. Populations of 7,136,171 and 13,078,751 are the denominators that make that possible.

FY2026 ($2.6B vs $3.1B) 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 Massachusetts and Pennsylvania state hubs for agencies and recipients.

A manufacturing pair with inverted intensity

Pennsylvania’s $28.1B versus Massachusetts’s $13.5B, 1,468,918 versus 294,824 awards, and 13,078,751 versus 7,136,171 residents are the size leads. Massachusetts’s $364.70 versus $239.68 is the intensity lead. FY2026’s $3.1B versus $2.6B is a narrower stock lead. Engines versus medicinal manufacturing is mix.

Two manufacturing peaks do not force the same ranking on every cut. Both files are USAspending.gov obligations, not outlays. Use the Massachusetts and Pennsylvania hubs for agencies and recipients.

Massachusetts versus Pennsylvania on USAspending.gov is $13.5B versus $28.1B in stacked obligations, 294,824 versus 1,468,918 awards, 7,136,171 versus 13,078,751 residents, $364.70 versus $239.68 per capita, and $2.6B versus $3.1B in FY2026. Top industries remain aircraft engine and engine parts manufacturing and medicinal and botanical manufacturing. Those cuts are the packet.

Do not divide FY2026 dollars by all-years award counts. Do not treat $364.70 and $239.68 as household income. Do not treat aircraft engine and engine parts manufacturing or medicinal and botanical manufacturing as a complete industrial census. Place of performance can differ from headquarters. Cash outlays can lag. After the comparison table, the Massachusetts and Pennsylvania state hubs hold agencies and recipients. FY2026 still shows $2.6B in Massachusetts and $3.1B in Pennsylvania, closer than the stacked $13.5B versus $28.1B gap.

Questions

Which has more federal spending, Massachusetts or Pennsylvania?

Massachusetts shows $13.5B in USAspending.gov obligations; Pennsylvania shows $28.1B. Award counts are 294,824 and 1,468,918. Populations are 7,136,171 and 13,078,751. Spending per capita is $364.70 versus $239.68. FY2026 obligations are $2.6B and $3.1B. These are obligations, not Treasury outlays. These figures are USAspending.gov obligations, not Treasury outlays.

What industries lead Massachusetts and Pennsylvania federal awards?

Massachusetts’s top industry is aircraft engine and engine parts manufacturing. Pennsylvania’s top industry is medicinal and botanical manufacturing. Those slices sit on $13.5B and $28.1B in USAspending.gov obligations and on 294,824 versus 1,468,918 awards. They mark the largest grouping in each file, not every award.

How do Massachusetts and Pennsylvania compare on spending per capita?

Spending per capita is $364.70 in Massachusetts on 7,136,171 residents and $239.68 in Pennsylvania on 13,078,751 residents. Those ratios use stacked USAspending.gov obligations of $13.5B and $28.1B, not FY2026 alone and not GDP. These figures are USAspending.gov obligations, not Treasury outlays.

Are Massachusetts vs Pennsylvania figures Treasury outlays?

No. The $13.5B and $28.1B stacked totals, and FY2026 amounts of $2.6B and $3.1B, are USAspending.gov obligations by place of performance. Outlays are cash payments and can lag. Award counts are 294,824 and 1,468,918. These figures are USAspending.gov obligations, not Treasury outlays.