Maryland vs Wisconsin on USAspending: $30.1B vs $10.0B

Maryland’s $30.1B stock versus Wisconsin’s $10.0B

These figures are USAspending.gov obligations, not Treasury outlays. Maryland’s $30.1B is about 3.0 times Wisconsin’s $10.0B. The comparison scores place of performance in the award file. Maryland holds the larger all-years total, and that stock is the first fact to keep in view before anyone treats Wisconsin’s higher per-capita figure as a larger file.

Award counts also favor Maryland, though by a thinner margin than dollars. Maryland logs 229,316 awards; Wisconsin logs 181,419. Maryland’s file is both heavier in dollars and busier in rows. Wisconsin’s $10.0B on 181,419 actions is still a large federal footprint; it is simply attached to a smaller stock than Maryland’s $30.1B.

Wisconsin’s $407.20 per capita beats Maryland’s $315.60

Maryland’s 6,263,220 residents exceed Wisconsin’s 5,960,975, but not by enough to explain a three-to-one dollar gap. After dividing the obligation stocks by those Census counts, Wisconsin shows $407.20 per capita and Maryland shows $315.60. Intensity runs the opposite direction from the $30.1B versus $10.0B ranking.

A $407.20 per-person reading in Wisconsin on 5,960,975 residents is an intensity fact, not a claim about state capacity. Maryland’s $315.60 on 6,263,220 residents sits on a much larger $30.1B stock. This table does not convert obligations into household income, tax incidence, or GDP.

Computer-related services in Maryland, health insurers in Wisconsin

Maryland’s top industry is other computer related services. Wisconsin’s is direct health and medical insurance carriers. Federal IT-services awards in Maryland and insurance-carrier awards in Wisconsin are different lead slices. Neither label is a complete industrial census of $30.1B or $10.0B.

A computer-related-services lead can concentrate professional-services actions inside Maryland’s 229,316-award file. A health-insurance lead can concentrate large medical-coverage actions inside Wisconsin’s 181,419-award file. Mix and scale both differ. The industry names mark the largest grouping, not every award.

FY2026: Wisconsin’s $2.4B leads Maryland’s $2.0B

FY2026 obligations are $2.0B in Maryland and $2.4B in Wisconsin. The latest year reverses the stacked ranking. Wisconsin’s $2.4B is a large slice of its $10.0B stock; Maryland’s $2.0B is a smaller slice of $30.1B. Recency questions belong in FY2026. The all-years totals remain the comparison’s headline stock.

Do not divide those FY2026 amounts by Maryland’s 229,316 or Wisconsin’s 181,419 all-years awards. Those row counts cover the stacked file, not a single fiscal year. Both cuts are USAspending.gov obligations. Outlays can lag award dates, so a $2.4B versus $2.0B latest-year reading is a commitment scoreboard, not a cash-flow statement.

Stock versus intensity in a mid-Atlantic / Great Lakes pair

Maryland leads stacked dollars ($30.1B vs $10.0B), award count (229,316 vs 181,419), and population (6,263,220 vs 5,960,975). Wisconsin leads per capita ($407.20 vs $315.60) and FY2026 dollars ($2.4B vs $2.0B). Those splits are why Maryland versus Wisconsin cannot be reduced to one ranking.

Use the Maryland and Wisconsin state hubs for agency and recipient tables. Keep every dollar labeled as obligations. Other computer related services versus direct health and medical insurance carriers is mix, not a verdict on either economy.

How to use the Maryland and Wisconsin hubs

Maryland’s $30.1B stock and Wisconsin’s $10.0B stock answer different questions than $315.60 versus $407.20 per capita. Readers who need agency or recipient detail should open the Maryland hub and the Wisconsin hub. Other computer related services versus direct health and medical insurance carriers is a lead-slice fact sitting on 229,316 and 181,419 awards, not a claim that either file is a single industry.

FY2026’s $2.4B in Wisconsin versus $2.0B in Maryland is the recency inversion. Do not treat that latest-year cut as a rewrite of the stacked ranking, and do not divide it by all-years award counts. Census counts of 6,263,220 and 5,960,975 support the per-capita comparison only. These are USAspending.gov obligations. Outlays can lag. A later cash payment does not change the $30.1B versus $10.0B stock or the $407.20 intensity reading in Wisconsin.

Maryland versus Wisconsin splits stock from intensity: $30.1B versus $10.0B, then $315.60 versus $407.20. Other computer related services and direct health and medical insurance carriers sit on 229,316 and 181,419 awards. FY2026 of $2.0B versus $2.4B is the recency inversion on 6,263,220 and 5,960,975 residents. Obligations are not outlays. Agency and recipient tables live on the state hubs. Keep the stacked ranking and the latest-year ranking labeled as separate cuts of the same USAspending.gov file.

Questions

Which state has more federal spending, Maryland or Wisconsin?

Maryland leads in stacked USAspending.gov obligations: $30.1B versus Wisconsin’s $10.0B. Maryland has more awards (229,316 vs 181,419) and more people (6,263,220 vs 5,960,975). Spending per capita is $315.60 in Maryland and $407.20 in Wisconsin. FY2026 obligations are $2.0B in Maryland and $2.4B in Wisconsin. These are obligations, not Treasury outlays.

Why is Wisconsin’s per-capita federal spending higher than Maryland’s?

Wisconsin’s $10.0B on 5,960,975 residents produces $407.20 per capita. Maryland’s $30.1B on 6,263,220 residents produces $315.60. Maryland still leads the stacked file and the award count (229,316 vs 181,419). FY2026 also favors Wisconsin ($2.4B vs $2.0B). Intensity and stock are different rankings in this pair.

What industries lead Maryland and Wisconsin federal awards?

Maryland’s top industry is other computer related services. Wisconsin’s is direct health and medical insurance carriers. Those slices sit on $30.1B and $10.0B in obligations. They mark the largest grouping in each file, not every award in either state. Award counts are 229,316 in Maryland and 181,419 in Wisconsin.

Are Maryland vs Wisconsin figures Treasury outlays?

No. SpendingVault uses USAspending.gov obligations. Outlays are cash payments and can lag. The $30.1B and $10.0B stacked totals and FY2026 amounts of $2.0B 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.