Ohio vs Oklahoma on USAspending: $8.1B vs $5.5B

Aviation cousins with inverted recency

These figures are USAspending.gov obligations, not Treasury outlays. Ohio’s $8.1B stock sits $2.7 billion above Oklahoma’s $5.5B. Place of performance in the award file is the scoring rule. The pair is useful because the top NAICS labels sit in the same aircraft-manufacturing family even while people, intensity, and the latest year diverge.

Ohio logs 168,038 awards on $8.1B. Oklahoma logs 50,460 awards on $5.5B. Oklahoma’s thinner file on a still-large stock implies a heavier typical booking. Ohio’s busier file on a larger stock is consistent with more actions. The $8.1B versus $5.5B ranking is a dollar ranking, not a recency ranking.

Ohio’s 168,038 awards on $8,141,450,027 versus Oklahoma’s 50,460 awards on $5,456,947,205 sit inside one aircraft-manufacturing family. People of 11,883,304 versus 4,095,393 produce $61.66 versus $205.98. FY2026 of $732,683,316 versus $843,573,742 already favors Oklahoma. Engines versus parts is mix, not interchangeable files. Related NAICS labels do not cancel an intensity inversion or a recency inversion.

Oklahoma’s $205.98 versus Ohio’s $61.66

Ohio’s 11,883,304 residents against $8.1B produce $61.66 per capita. Oklahoma’s 4,095,393 residents against $5.5B produce $205.98. Intensity in Oklahoma is more than three times Ohio’s even though Ohio holds the larger stacked total.

A $205.98 per-person reading is an intensity fact attached to $5.5B, not a household payment. Ohio’s $61.66 is attached to $8.1B. This table scores USAspending place of performance, not GDP. Ohio can lead stacked dollars while trailing on a per-resident basis because 11,883,304 people spread $8.1B more thinly than 4,095,393 people spread $5.5B.

Engines in Ohio, parts in Oklahoma

Ohio’s top industry is aircraft engine and engine parts manufacturing. Oklahoma’s is other aircraft parts and auxiliary equipment manufacturing. Those NAICS labels mark the largest grouping in each file. Engine awards and parts awards are related lead products, not identical ones, sitting on $8.1B and $5.5B stocks.

An engine-parts lead inside Ohio’s 168,038-award file can concentrate propulsion manufacturing without explaining every dollar. An aircraft-parts lead inside Oklahoma’s 50,460-award file can concentrate auxiliary equipment without making Oklahoma a single-product state. Shared industry family does not mean shared files. Neither label is the entire stock.

FY2026 flip: $843.6M in Oklahoma vs $732.7M in Ohio

FY2026 obligations are $843,573,742 in Oklahoma and $732,683,316 in Ohio. Oklahoma leads the latest year even though Ohio leads the stacked ranking by $2.7 billion. Recency questions belong in FY2026. The $8.1B and $5.5B totals remain the full USAspending.gov aggregate this comparison uses. Both years are obligations, not outlays.

Do not divide those FY figures by Ohio’s 168,038 or Oklahoma’s 50,460 all-years awards. Per capita of $61.66 on 11,883,304 residents versus $205.98 on 4,095,393 residents is the intensity comparison. FY2026 is the cut that reverses the dollar ranking. Stacked totals still favor Ohio.

Oklahoma’s $843,573,742 FY2026 versus Ohio’s $732,683,316 already reverses $5,456,947,205 versus $8,141,450,027. 50,460 awards versus 168,038 awards and 4,095,393 residents versus 11,883,304 residents produce $205.98 versus $61.66. Engines versus parts remain related labels, not shared files. Recency and intensity invert the stacked ranking. Both years are obligations.

Ohio’s stock, Oklahoma’s intensity and year

Ohio leads stacked dollars ($8.1B vs $5.5B), award count (168,038 vs 50,460), and population (11,883,304 vs 4,095,393). Oklahoma leads per capita ($205.98 vs $61.66) and FY2026 ($843.6M vs $732.7M). Those splits are why an aircraft-family pair cannot be reduced to one ranking.

Aircraft engine and engine parts manufacturing versus other aircraft parts and auxiliary equipment manufacturing is mix inside files that contain many other industries. Use the Ohio and Oklahoma hubs for agencies and recipients. Keep both stocks labeled as USAspending.gov obligations.

Engines versus parts on inverted recency

Aircraft engine and engine parts manufacturing in Ohio and other aircraft parts and auxiliary equipment manufacturing in Oklahoma sit in the same industry family. They sit on $8,141,450,027 versus $5,456,947,205, on 168,038 awards versus 50,460, and on 11,883,304 residents versus 4,095,393. Per capita of $61.66 versus $205.98 is the intensity inversion. FY2026 of $732,683,316 versus $843,573,742 is the recency inversion.

Related NAICS labels are not interchangeable files. Oklahoma’s thinner file on $5.5B is a heavier typical booking. Ohio’s larger stock is still the stacked ranking. Both cuts are USAspending.gov obligations, not Treasury outlays. Place of performance is the scoring rule.

Questions

Which state has more federal spending, Ohio or Oklahoma?

Ohio leads in stacked USAspending.gov obligations: $8,141,450,027 versus Oklahoma’s $5,456,947,205. Ohio has more awards (168,038 vs 50,460) and more people (11,883,304 vs 4,095,393). Spending per capita is $61.66 in Ohio and $205.98 in Oklahoma. FY2026 obligations are $732.7M and $843.6M. These are obligations, not Treasury outlays.

Does Oklahoma outpace Ohio in FY2026 federal obligations?

Yes. FY2026 obligations are $843,573,742 in Oklahoma versus $732,683,316 in Ohio. The stacked ranking still favors Ohio ($8.1B vs $5.5B). Per capita is $205.98 versus $61.66. Award counts are 50,460 and 168,038. Populations are 4,095,393 and 11,883,304.

Do Ohio and Oklahoma share the same top federal industry?

They share an aircraft-manufacturing family, not the same NAICS label. Ohio’s top industry is aircraft engine and engine parts manufacturing. Oklahoma’s is other aircraft parts and auxiliary equipment manufacturing. Those slices sit on $8.1B and $5.5B stocks. Award counts are 168,038 in Ohio and 50,460 in Oklahoma.

Are Ohio vs Oklahoma figures Treasury outlays?

No. SpendingVault uses USAspending.gov obligations. Outlays are cash payments and can lag. The $8.1B and $5.5B stacked totals and FY2026 amounts of $732.7M and $843.6M measure award commitments by place of performance, not Monthly Treasury Statement payments.