Montana vs New Hampshire on USAspending: $1.25B vs $2.48B

Nearly even Census counts, a doubled stock in New Hampshire

Montana’s 1,137,233 residents and New Hampshire’s 1,409,032 are in the same small-state band. The stocks are not: $1.25B versus $2.48B. Intensity follows the dollars: $187.18 per capita versus $284.15.

Award volume favors Montana, 21,487 versus 9,224. Montana’s file is denser in rows on a smaller stock. New Hampshire’s 9,224 actions sit on $2.48B beside the $284.15 reading.

FY2026 keeps New Hampshire ahead on recency: $400.4M versus $212.9M. Cite USAspending.gov for the stacked stocks and the latest-year amounts.

Montana’s 21,487 awards on $1.25B against New Hampshire’s 9,224 awards on $2.48B split volume and stock. Census counts of 1,137,233 and 1,409,032 are close. Spending per capita of $187.18 versus $284.15 follows the dollars. FY2026 of $212.9M versus $400.4M keeps New Hampshire ahead on recency.

Commercial and institutional building construction versus small arms, ordnance, and ordnance accessories manufacturing is mix. Both peaks sit on USAspending.gov obligations. Outlays are not listed. Cite USAspending.gov.

Construction in Montana, ordnance in New Hampshire

Montana’s lead NAICS is commercial and institutional building construction. New Hampshire’s lead NAICS is small arms, ordnance, and ordnance accessories manufacturing. Those peaks sit on $1.25B and $2.48B. Construction is a first read on Montana’s mix; ordnance is a first read on New Hampshire’s mix.

The 21,487 Montana awards and 9,224 New Hampshire awards include many actions outside those labels. Use the Montana and New Hampshire state hubs for agencies and recipients. Both peaks are USAspending.gov obligation mixes.

FY2026: $212.9M versus $400.4M

Fiscal year 2026 obligations are $212.9M in Montana and $400.4M in New Hampshire. Recency preserves New Hampshire’s stacked dollar lead. Treat the year as a recency slice of obligations, not as Treasury cash.

Do not divide $212.9M or $400.4M by 21,487 or 9,224 all-years awards. Spending per capita of $187.18 and $284.15 already sits beside Census counts of 1,137,233 and 1,409,032.

Construction rows on a smaller Montana stock

Montana’s 21,487 awards on $1.25B exceed New Hampshire’s 9,224 awards on $2.48B. More rows, fewer dollars. Census counts of 1,137,233 and 1,409,032 are close for two small states. Spending per capita of $187.18 versus $284.15 follows the stocks.

Commercial and institutional building construction leads Montana. Small arms, ordnance, and ordnance accessories manufacturing lead New Hampshire. FY2026 of $212.9M versus $400.4M keeps New Hampshire ahead on recency.

Those dollar cuts are USAspending.gov obligations. Outlays are not in the packet. Do not invent average award size from 21,487 or 9,224.

Nearly even headcount, a doubled New Hampshire stock

A 1,137,233 versus 1,409,032 Census comparison does not predict $1.25B versus $2.48B. New Hampshire’s file is larger in dollars and sparser in rows.

The comparison hub holds the tables. The Montana and New Hampshire hubs hold agencies and recipients. Cite USAspending.gov. Keep $187.18 and $284.15 labeled as Census-based obligation ratios.

How to read Montana versus New Hampshire

Read New Hampshire first on stacked dollars ($2.48B vs $1.25B), population (1,409,032 vs 1,137,233), spending per capita ($284.15 vs $187.18), and FY2026 ($400.4M vs $212.9M). Read Montana first on awards (21,487 vs 9,224). Note construction versus small arms and ordnance.

The comparison hub holds the tables. The Montana and New Hampshire hubs hold agencies and recipients. Outlays are a different series. Keep per-capita figures labeled as Census-based packet figures on USAspending.gov obligations.

Montana’s 21,487 awards on $1.25B versus New Hampshire’s 9,224 awards on $2.48B split volume and stock. FY2026 of $212.9M versus $400.4M agrees with New Hampshire on recency. Cite USAspending.gov. Outlays are not listed.

Questions

Does Montana or New Hampshire have more federal spending?

New Hampshire leads stacked USAspending.gov obligations $2.48B to Montana’s $1.25B. New Hampshire also leads spending per capita, $284.15 versus $187.18, on 1,409,032 residents against Montana’s 1,137,233. Montana has more awards (21,487 vs 9,224). FY2026 obligations are $212.9M in Montana and $400.4M in New Hampshire.

Why does Montana have more awards than New Hampshire?

The packet reports 21,487 awards in Montana and 9,224 in New Hampshire. Montana’s stacked stock is smaller ($1.25B vs $2.48B). Population is 1,137,233 versus 1,409,032. Award count is a row total, not average size. These figures are USAspending.gov obligations, not outlays.

What industries lead in Montana and New Hampshire?

Montana’s top industry is commercial and institutional building construction. New Hampshire’s is small arms, ordnance, and ordnance accessories manufacturing. Those labels are the largest NAICS slices on $1.25B and $2.48B. Award counts are 21,487 in Montana and 9,224 in New Hampshire.

Are Montana vs New Hampshire figures Treasury outlays?

No. The $1.25B and $2.48B totals, and FY2026 amounts of $212.9M and $400.4M, are USAspending.gov obligations. Outlays are cash payments and can lag. Spending per capita ($187.18 vs $284.15) uses Census population where present.