New York vs Wisconsin on USAspending: $11.9B vs $10.0B

New York’s $11.9B edges Wisconsin’s $10.0B

These figures are USAspending.gov obligations, not Treasury outlays. New York’s $11.9B is about 1.2 times Wisconsin’s $10.0B. The comparison scores place of performance in the award file. New York holds the larger all-years total, but the gap is modest next to the gap in population and the gap in intensity.

Award counts favor New York. New York has 705,506 awards; Wisconsin has 181,419. New York’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 New York’s $11.9B spread across 705,506 records.

Wisconsin’s $407.20 versus New York’s $70.36

New York’s 19,867,248 residents more than triple Wisconsin’s 5,960,975. After dividing the obligation stocks by those Census counts, Wisconsin shows $407.20 per capita and New York shows $70.36. Intensity runs the opposite direction from the $11.9B versus $10.0B ranking. Wisconsin is about 5.8 times as intensive per resident.

A $70.36 per-person reading in New York on 19,867,248 residents means a huge private economy can coexist with a thinner federal-award intensity than Wisconsin shows at $407.20. This table scores USAspending place of performance, not GDP. New York’s larger Census count produces only a modestly larger stock.

Communications equipment in New York, health insurers in Wisconsin

New York’s top industry is other communications equipment 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. Equipment-manufacturing awards and insurance-carrier awards are different lead products sitting on $11.9B and $10.0B.

A communications-equipment lead can concentrate hardware production inside New York’s 705,506-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 New York’s $1.4B

FY2026 obligations are $1.4B in New York 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; New York’s $1.4B is a smaller slice of $11.9B. Recency questions belong in FY2026. The all-years totals remain the comparison’s headline stock.

Do not divide those FY figures by New York’s 705,506 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 $1.4B latest-year reading is a commitment scoreboard, not a cash-flow statement.

Close stocks, inverted intensity and recency

New York leads stacked dollars ($11.9B vs $10.0B), award count (705,506 vs 181,419), and population (19,867,248 vs 5,960,975). Wisconsin leads per capita ($407.20 vs $70.36) and FY2026 ($2.4B vs $1.4B). Those splits are why New York versus Wisconsin cannot be reduced to a modest $1.9B stock gap.

Other communications equipment manufacturing versus direct health and medical insurance carriers is mix inside files that contain many other industries. Use the New York and Wisconsin hubs for agencies and recipients. Keep $11.9B and $10.0B labeled as obligations.

How to use the New York and Wisconsin hubs

New York’s $11.9B on 19,867,248 residents versus Wisconsin’s $10.0B on 5,960,975 residents is a close-stock pair with a wide intensity gap: $70.36 versus $407.20. FY2026’s $1.4B versus $2.4B inverts the stacked ranking. Open the New York hub and the Wisconsin hub for agencies and recipients. Other communications equipment manufacturing versus direct health and medical insurance carriers is mix on 705,506 and 181,419 awards.

These are USAspending.gov obligations, not outlays. Do not divide latest-year dollars by all-years award counts. Place of performance can differ from where the paying agency sits. Use the hubs for the next drill-down. Keep $11.9B and $10.0B labeled as obligations so a modest stock gap is not mistaken for similar intensity. Recency and stock remain different questions in this pair.

New York versus Wisconsin is a close stock of $11.9B versus $10.0B with inverted intensity and recency. Other communications equipment manufacturing and direct health and medical insurance carriers sit on 705,506 and 181,419 awards. FY2026 of $1.4B versus $2.4B favors Wisconsin. Per capita of $70.36 versus $407.20 on 19,867,248 and 5,960,975 residents is the intensity inversion. Obligations remain the unit. The New York and Wisconsin hubs hold the next tables.

Questions

Which state has more federal spending, New York or Wisconsin?

New York leads in stacked USAspending.gov obligations: $11.9B versus Wisconsin’s $10.0B. New York has more awards (705,506 vs 181,419) and more people (19,867,248 vs 5,960,975). Spending per capita is $70.36 in New York and $407.20 in Wisconsin. FY2026 obligations are $1.4B in New York and $2.4B in Wisconsin. These are obligations, not Treasury outlays.

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

Wisconsin’s $10.0B on 5,960,975 residents produces $407.20 per capita. New York’s $11.9B on 19,867,248 residents produces $70.36. New York still leads the stacked file and the award count (705,506 vs 181,419). FY2026 favors Wisconsin ($2.4B vs $1.4B). Intensity and stock are different rankings in this pair.

What industries lead New York and Wisconsin federal awards?

New York’s top industry is other communications equipment manufacturing. Wisconsin’s is direct health and medical insurance carriers. Those slices sit on $11.9B and $10.0B in obligations. They mark the largest grouping in each file, not every award in either state. Award counts are 705,506 in New York and 181,419 in Wisconsin.

Are New York vs Wisconsin figures Treasury outlays?

No. SpendingVault uses USAspending.gov obligations. Outlays are cash payments and can lag. The $11.9B and $10.0B stacked totals and FY2026 amounts of $1.4B 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.