Minnesota vs South Carolina on USAspending: $2.74B vs $3.85B

Two large-population states, a $1.11 billion stock gap

South Carolina’s $3.85B stacked total is about 1.41 times Minnesota’s $2.74B. Census counts sit near each other: Minnesota’s 5,793,151 versus South Carolina’s 5,478,831, about 1.06 times. Intensity therefore tracks the dollar lead: $83.98 per capita in South Carolina and $66.07 in Minnesota. When headcount is similar, a $1.11 billion obligation gap shows up cleanly in the per-capita column. Those ratios are packet figures of USAspending.gov obligations beside Census population, not outlays per resident.

Award counts also favor South Carolina, 129,440 against 98,897. Both files are busy. South Carolina’s list is longer and sits on the larger stock. Minnesota’s 98,897 awards on $2.74B are not a thin file; they are the smaller of two large-population files.

This pair is useful because the Census counts are close. Population is not doing the work of separating $3.85B from $2.74B.

Pharmacy benefit administration versus biologics manufacturing

Minnesota’s lead NAICS is pharmacy benefit management and other third party administration of insurance and pension funds. South Carolina’s lead NAICS is biological product (except diagnostic) manufacturing. PBM and third-party administration is Minnesota’s peak on $2.74B and 98,897 awards. Biologics manufacturing is South Carolina’s peak on $3.85B and 129,440 awards. An insurance-administration peak versus a biologics peak is the industry contrast.

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

FY2026: $460.1M in South Carolina, $382.8M in Minnesota

Fiscal year 2026 obligations are $460.1M in South Carolina and $382.8M in Minnesota. Recency follows the stacked ranking. $460.1M is about 1.20 times $382.8M, a narrower relative gap than the all-years $3.85B versus $2.74B. The latest year still belongs to South Carolina, but Minnesota stays within range on recency.

Read FY2026 as an obligation year slice. Do not divide $460.1M or $382.8M by 129,440 or 98,897 all-years awards. Spending per capita of $83.98 and $66.07 already uses Census counts of 5,478,831 and 5,793,151.

Similar people, different stocks

5,793,151 versus 5,478,831 is a close Census pairing. Award counts of 98,897 versus 129,440 are in the same order of magnitude. The columns that separate the states are stacked stock ($2.74B vs $3.85B), spending per capita ($66.07 vs $83.98), FY2026 ($382.8M vs $460.1M), and the industry peaks (PBM administration vs biologics manufacturing).

A searcher who ranks only by population will treat these states as peers. A searcher who ranks by obligation stock will put South Carolina first. The packet reports both so the $1.11 billion gap stays visible.

Minnesota’s 5,793,151 residents versus South Carolina’s 5,478,831 are close enough that population does little work. South Carolina still leads $3.85B to $2.74B, $83.98 to $66.07 per capita, 129,440 to 98,897 awards, and $460.1M to $382.8M in FY2026. Pharmacy benefit administration versus biological product manufacturing is the industry split that remains. Two large-population files, one $1.11 billion stock gap, two different NAICS peaks. Cite those figures as USAspending.gov obligations, not as Treasury outlays.

How to read Minnesota versus South Carolina

Read South Carolina first on stacked stock ($3.85B vs $2.74B), spending per capita ($83.98 vs $66.07), awards (129,440 vs 98,897), and FY2026 ($460.1M vs $382.8M). Read Minnesota first on population (5,793,151 vs 5,478,831). Note pharmacy benefit administration versus biologics manufacturing. All cuts are obligations.

The comparison hub holds the tables. The Minnesota and South Carolina hubs hold state detail. Outlays stay off this page.

Two ~5.5 million-resident states and a $1.11 billion gap

Minnesota’s 5,793,151 residents and South Carolina’s 5,478,831 residents are close. Award counts of 98,897 and 129,440 are in the same order of magnitude. The $2.74B versus $3.85B stock gap, the $66.07 versus $83.98 per-capita gap, and the $382.8M versus $460.1M FY2026 gap are what separate the pair. Pharmacy benefit administration in Minnesota and biological product manufacturing in South Carolina are the peaks on those stocks. Population is not the separator.

Keep every ranking on USAspending.gov obligations. Outlays can lag both insurance-administration awards and biologics manufacturing awards. The Minnesota and South Carolina state hubs list agencies and recipients. The comparison hub holds the tables. This page does not add employment or output claims that are absent from the packet.

Questions

Does Minnesota or South Carolina have more federal spending?

South Carolina leads stacked USAspending.gov obligations $3.85B to Minnesota’s $2.74B. South Carolina also leads spending per capita, $83.98 versus $66.07, on 5,478,831 residents against Minnesota’s 5,793,151. South Carolina has more awards (129,440 vs 98,897). FY2026 obligations are $382.8M in Minnesota and $460.1M in South Carolina.

Are Minnesota and South Carolina similar in population?

Census counts are 5,793,151 in Minnesota and 5,478,831 in South Carolina. That is a close pairing. Stacked obligations still differ, $2.74B versus $3.85B, which produces per-capita figures of $66.07 versus $83.98. The ratios are packet figures on USAspending.gov obligations, not outlays.

What industries lead in Minnesota and South Carolina?

Minnesota’s top industry is pharmacy benefit management and other third party administration of insurance and pension funds. South Carolina’s is biological product (except diagnostic) manufacturing. Those labels sit on $2.74B and $3.85B. Award counts are 98,897 in Minnesota and 129,440 in South Carolina.

Are Minnesota vs South Carolina figures Treasury outlays?

No. The $2.74B and $3.85B totals, and FY2026 amounts of $382.8M and $460.1M, are USAspending.gov obligations. Outlays are cash payments and can lag. Spending per capita ($66.07 vs $83.98) uses Census population where present. Spending per capita uses Census population where present and should not be read as cash per resident.