Missouri vs Wisconsin on USAspending: $10.4B vs $10.0B

Nearly matched stocks: $10.4B versus $10.0B

These figures are USAspending.gov obligations, not Treasury outlays. Missouri’s $10.4B edges Wisconsin’s $10.0B by a thin margin. The comparison scores place of performance in the award file. Among two Midwestern states with similar Census counts, the stacked ranking is close enough that other cuts — rows, intensity, recency — do more work than the dollar lead.

Award counts favor Missouri. Missouri has 300,867 awards; Wisconsin has 181,419. Missouri’s file is busier in rows on a dollar stock that is only modestly larger. Wisconsin’s $10.0B on 181,419 actions implies a heavier typical booking than Missouri’s $10.4B on 300,867 records.

Wisconsin’s $407.20 versus Missouri’s $262.46

Missouri’s 6,245,466 residents and Wisconsin’s 5,960,975 residents sit in the same band. After dividing the obligation stocks by those Census counts, Wisconsin shows $407.20 per capita and Missouri shows $262.46. Intensity favors Wisconsin even though Missouri holds the slightly larger $10.4B stock.

A $407.20 per-person reading in Wisconsin on 5,960,975 residents is an intensity fact attached to $10.0B. Missouri’s $262.46 on 6,245,466 residents is attached to $10.4B. This table scores USAspending place of performance, not GDP. Two similar populations do not produce identical intensity.

Aircraft in Missouri, health insurers in Wisconsin

Missouri’s top industry is aircraft manufacturing. Wisconsin’s is direct health and medical insurance carriers. Those labels mark the largest NAICS slice in each state’s file, not a full industrial census. Aircraft awards and insurance-carrier awards are different lead products sitting on $10.4B and $10.0B.

An aircraft-manufacturing lead can concentrate large production awards inside Missouri’s 300,867-award file. A health-insurance lead can concentrate large medical-coverage actions inside Wisconsin’s 181,419-award file. Mix and scale both differ. Neither industry name explains every dollar.

FY2026: Wisconsin’s $2.4B leads Missouri’s $1.6B

FY2026 obligations are $1.6B in Missouri 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; Missouri’s $1.6B is a smaller slice of $10.4B. Recency questions belong in FY2026. The all-years totals remain the comparison’s headline stock.

Do not divide those FY figures by Missouri’s 300,867 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 $1.6B latest-year reading is a commitment scoreboard, not a cash-flow statement.

Matched Midwest stocks, inverted recency

Missouri leads stacked dollars ($10.4B vs $10.0B), award count (300,867 vs 181,419), and population (6,245,466 vs 5,960,975). Wisconsin leads per capita ($407.20 vs $262.46) and FY2026 ($2.4B vs $1.6B). Those splits are why Missouri versus Wisconsin cannot be reduced to two similar $10B files.

Aircraft manufacturing versus direct health and medical insurance carriers is mix inside files that contain many other industries. Use the Missouri and Wisconsin hubs for agencies and recipients. Keep $10.4B and $10.0B labeled as obligations.

How to use the Missouri and Wisconsin hubs

Two Midwestern states with 6,245,466 and 5,960,975 residents post $10.4B and $10.0B — a near match on stock and people. Award counts of 300,867 versus 181,419, per capita of $262.46 versus $407.20, and FY2026 of $1.6B versus $2.4B are where the files diverge. Open the Missouri hub and the Wisconsin hub for agencies and recipients. Aircraft manufacturing versus direct health and medical insurance carriers 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 $10.4B and $10.0B labeled as obligations so a close stock is not mistaken for identical files. Recency and intensity both favor Wisconsin in this pair.

Missouri versus Wisconsin is a near match on stock and people: $10.4B versus $10.0B on 6,245,466 and 5,960,975 residents. Aircraft manufacturing and direct health and medical insurance carriers sit on 300,867 and 181,419 awards. FY2026 of $1.6B versus $2.4B favors Wisconsin. Per capita is $262.46 versus $407.20. Obligations are not outlays. The Missouri and Wisconsin hubs hold agencies and recipients. Stocks of $10.4B and $10.0B on 6,245,466 and 5,960,975 residents look matched until 300,867 versus 181,419 awards and $262.46 versus $407.20 per capita. FY2026’s $1.6B versus $2.4B is Wisconsin’s recency edge.

Questions

Which state has more federal spending, Missouri or Wisconsin?

Missouri leads slightly in stacked USAspending.gov obligations: $10.4B versus Wisconsin’s $10.0B. Missouri has more awards (300,867 vs 181,419) and more people (6,245,466 vs 5,960,975). Spending per capita is $262.46 in Missouri and $407.20 in Wisconsin. FY2026 obligations are $1.6B in Missouri and $2.4B in Wisconsin. These are obligations, not Treasury outlays.

Are Missouri and Wisconsin similar in federal obligations?

The stacked totals are close ($10.4B vs $10.0B) and the Census counts are close (6,245,466 vs 5,960,975). Award counts are not: 300,867 in Missouri versus 181,419 in Wisconsin. Per capita favors Wisconsin ($407.20 vs $262.46). FY2026 favors Wisconsin ($2.4B vs $1.6B). Similar stocks can hide different files.

What industries lead Missouri and Wisconsin federal awards?

Missouri’s top industry is aircraft manufacturing. Wisconsin’s is direct health and medical insurance carriers. Those slices sit on $10.4B and $10.0B in obligations. They mark the largest grouping in each file, not every award in either state. Award counts are 300,867 in Missouri and 181,419 in Wisconsin.

Are Missouri vs Wisconsin figures Treasury outlays?

No. SpendingVault uses USAspending.gov obligations. Outlays are cash payments and can lag. The $10.4B and $10.0B stacked totals and FY2026 amounts of $1.6B 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.