Michigan vs Ohio on USAspending: $8.4B vs $8.1B

Nearly matched stocks: $8.4B versus $8.1B

These figures are USAspending.gov obligations, not Treasury outlays. Michigan’s $8.4B edges Ohio’s $8.1B by a thin margin. The comparison scores place of performance in the award file. Among two neighboring Great Lakes states, the stacked ranking is close enough that other cuts — rows, intensity, recency — do more work than the dollar lead.

Award counts are not close. Michigan has 416,538 awards; Ohio has 168,038. Michigan’s file is busier in rows on a dollar stock that is only modestly larger. Ohio’s $8.1B on 168,038 actions implies a heavier typical booking than Michigan’s $8.4B spread across 416,538 records.

Michigan’s $175.18 versus Ohio’s $61.66

Ohio’s 11,883,304 residents exceed Michigan’s 10,140,459. After dividing the obligation stocks by those Census counts, Michigan shows $175.18 per capita and Ohio shows $61.66. Intensity favors Michigan by about 2.8 times even though the $8.4B versus $8.1B stocks are nearly matched. Population is not the engine of this ranking.

A $175.18 per-person reading in Michigan on 10,140,459 residents is an intensity fact attached to $8.4B. Ohio’s $61.66 on 11,883,304 residents is attached to $8.1B. This table scores USAspending place of performance, not GDP. Two similar stocks can hide a wide intensity gap.

Automobiles in Michigan, aircraft engines in Ohio

Michigan’s top industry is automobile manufacturing. Ohio’s is aircraft engine and engine parts manufacturing. Those labels mark the largest NAICS slice in each state’s file, not a full industrial census. Auto-manufacturing awards and engine-parts awards are different production lead products sitting on $8.4B and $8.1B.

An automobile-manufacturing lead can concentrate vehicle production inside Michigan’s 416,538-award file. An aircraft-engine lead can concentrate propulsion manufacturing inside Ohio’s 168,038-award file. Mix and scale both differ. Neither industry name explains every dollar.

FY2026: $1.8B in Michigan vs $732.7M in Ohio

FY2026 obligations are $1.8B in Michigan and $732.7M in Ohio. Michigan’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 Michigan’s 416,538 or Ohio’s 168,038 all-years awards. Per capita of $175.18 on 10,140,459 residents versus $61.66 on 11,883,304 residents is the intensity comparison that already reverses the population ranking. Both cuts are USAspending.gov obligations.

Close stocks, inverted intensity and recency

Michigan leads stacked dollars ($8.4B vs $8.1B), award count (416,538 vs 168,038), per capita ($175.18 vs $61.66), and FY2026 ($1.8B vs $732.7M). Ohio leads population (11,883,304 vs 10,140,459). Those splits are why Michigan versus Ohio cannot be reduced to two similar $8B files.

Automobile manufacturing versus aircraft engine and engine parts manufacturing is mix inside files that contain many other industries. Use the Michigan and Ohio hubs for agencies and recipients. Keep $8.4B and $8.1B labeled as obligations.

How to use the Michigan and Ohio hubs

Two Great Lakes neighbors post $8.4B and $8.1B — a near match on stock. Award counts of 416,538 versus 168,038, per capita of $175.18 versus $61.66, and FY2026 of $1.8B versus $732.7M are where the files diverge. Ohio’s 11,883,304 residents versus Michigan’s 10,140,459 do not produce the larger stock. Open the Michigan hub and the Ohio hub for agencies and recipients. Automobile manufacturing versus aircraft engine and engine parts manufacturing is mix.

These are USAspending.gov obligations, not Treasury outlays. Do not divide latest-year dollars by all-years award counts. Place of performance can differ from the paying agency’s location. Use the hubs when the next question is recipients. Keep $8.4B and $8.1B labeled as obligations so a close stock is not mistaken for similar intensity or similar recency.

Michigan versus Ohio is a near match on stock of $8.4B versus $8.1B with inverted intensity of $175.18 versus $61.66. Automobile manufacturing and aircraft engine and engine parts manufacturing sit on 416,538 and 168,038 awards. FY2026 of $1.8B versus $732.7M favors Michigan. Census counts are 10,140,459 and 11,883,304. Obligations are not outlays. The Michigan and Ohio hubs hold agencies and recipients. Michigan’s $8.4B versus Ohio’s $8.1B is a near tie until 416,538 versus 168,038 awards, $175.18 versus $61.66 per capita, and $1.8B versus $732.7M in FY2026. Automobiles versus aircraft engines is mix on 10,140,459 and 11,883,304 residents. Obligations remain the unit.

Questions

Which state has more federal spending, Michigan or Ohio?

Michigan leads slightly in stacked USAspending.gov obligations: $8.4B versus Ohio’s $8.1B. Michigan has more awards (416,538 vs 168,038). Ohio has more people (11,883,304 vs 10,140,459). Spending per capita is $175.18 in Michigan and $61.66 in Ohio. FY2026 obligations are $1.8B and $732.7M. These are obligations, not Treasury outlays.

Are Michigan and Ohio similar in federal obligations?

The stacked totals are close ($8.4B vs $8.1B). Award counts are not: 416,538 in Michigan versus 168,038 in Ohio. Per capita favors Michigan ($175.18 vs $61.66) despite Ohio’s larger Census count (11,883,304 vs 10,140,459). FY2026 favors Michigan ($1.8B vs $732.7M). Similar stocks can hide different files.

What industries lead Michigan and Ohio federal awards?

Michigan’s top industry is automobile manufacturing. Ohio’s is aircraft engine and engine parts manufacturing. Those slices sit on $8.4B and $8.1B in obligations. They mark the largest grouping in each file, not every award in either state. Award counts are 416,538 in Michigan and 168,038 in Ohio.

Are Michigan vs Ohio figures Treasury outlays?

No. SpendingVault uses USAspending.gov obligations. Outlays are cash payments and can lag. The $8.4B and $8.1B stacked totals and FY2026 amounts of $1.8B and $732.7M measure award commitments by place of performance, not Monthly Treasury Statement payments. Place of performance can differ from where the paying agency sits.