Pennsylvania vs Wisconsin on USAspending: $28.1B vs $10.0B

Pennsylvania’s $28.1B versus Wisconsin’s $10.0B

These figures are USAspending.gov obligations, not Treasury outlays. Pennsylvania’s $28.1B is about 2.8 times Wisconsin’s $10.0B. The comparison scores place of performance in the award file. Pennsylvania holds the larger all-years total, and that stock is the first fact to keep in view before anyone treats Wisconsin’s higher per-capita figure as a larger file.

Award counts widen the gap more than dollars do. Pennsylvania logs 1,468,918 awards; Wisconsin logs 181,419. Pennsylvania’s file is both heavier in dollars and much busier in rows. Wisconsin’s $10.0B on 181,419 actions implies a heavier typical booking than Pennsylvania’s $28.1B spread across 1,468,918 records.

Wisconsin’s $407.20 per capita versus Pennsylvania’s $239.68

Pennsylvania’s 13,078,751 residents more than double Wisconsin’s 5,960,975. After dividing the obligation stocks by those Census counts, Wisconsin shows $407.20 per capita and Pennsylvania shows $239.68. Intensity runs the opposite direction from the $28.1B versus $10.0B ranking. Population does not explain who is more intensive.

A $407.20 per-person reading in Wisconsin on 5,960,975 residents is an intensity fact attached to a $10.0B stock. Pennsylvania’s $239.68 on 13,078,751 residents is attached to $28.1B. This table scores USAspending place of performance, not GDP. The per-capita lead does not rewrite the stacked ranking.

Botanicals in Pennsylvania, health insurers in Wisconsin

Pennsylvania’s top industry is medicinal and botanical 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. Botanical-manufacturing awards and insurance-carrier awards are different lead products sitting on $28.1B and $10.0B.

A botanical-manufacturing lead in Pennsylvania sits inside 1,468,918 awards, so that slice is one grouping among a thick record set. 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: $3.1B in Pennsylvania vs $2.4B in Wisconsin

FY2026 obligations are $3.1B in Pennsylvania and $2.4B in Wisconsin. Pennsylvania’s latest year remains ahead, but the gap is narrower than the 2.8-times stacked ranking. Wisconsin’s $2.4B is a large slice of its $10.0B stock; Pennsylvania’s $3.1B is a smaller slice of $28.1B. Recency questions belong in FY2026.

Do not divide those FY figures by Pennsylvania’s 1,468,918 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 $3.1B versus $2.4B latest-year reading is a commitment scoreboard, not a cash-flow statement.

A Great Lakes intensity inversion

Pennsylvania leads stacked dollars ($28.1B vs $10.0B), award count (1,468,918 vs 181,419), population (13,078,751 vs 5,960,975), and FY2026 ($3.1B vs $2.4B). Wisconsin leads per capita ($407.20 vs $239.68). That intensity inversion is the distinctive fact in this pair.

Medicinal and botanical manufacturing versus direct health and medical insurance carriers is mix inside files that contain many other industries. Use the Pennsylvania and Wisconsin hubs for agencies and recipients. Keep $28.1B and $10.0B labeled as obligations.

How to use the Pennsylvania and Wisconsin hubs

Pennsylvania’s 1,468,918 awards on $28.1B versus Wisconsin’s 181,419 awards on $10.0B is a scale gap, not a per-capita gap. Wisconsin’s $407.20 versus Pennsylvania’s $239.68 is the intensity inversion. The Pennsylvania hub and the Wisconsin hub hold agency and recipient tables this pair page does not repeat. Medicinal and botanical manufacturing versus direct health and medical insurance carriers is mix, not a full file description.

FY2026’s $3.1B versus $2.4B is closer than the 2.8-times stacked ranking. Do not divide those latest-year amounts by all-years award counts. Census counts of 13,078,751 and 5,960,975 support the per-capita comparison only. These are USAspending.gov obligations, not Treasury outlays. Place of performance can differ from the paying agency’s location. Use the hubs for the next drill-down.

Pennsylvania versus Wisconsin is a scale gap of $28.1B versus $10.0B with an intensity inversion of $239.68 versus $407.20. Medicinal and botanical manufacturing and direct health and medical insurance carriers sit on 1,468,918 and 181,419 awards. FY2026 of $3.1B versus $2.4B is closer than the stacked ranking. Census counts are 13,078,751 and 5,960,975. Obligations are not outlays. The Pennsylvania and Wisconsin hubs hold the next tables.

Questions

Which state has more federal spending, Pennsylvania or Wisconsin?

Pennsylvania leads in stacked USAspending.gov obligations: $28.1B versus Wisconsin’s $10.0B. Pennsylvania has more awards (1,468,918 vs 181,419) and more people (13,078,751 vs 5,960,975). Spending per capita is $239.68 in Pennsylvania and $407.20 in Wisconsin. FY2026 obligations are $3.1B and $2.4B. These are obligations, not Treasury outlays.

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

Wisconsin’s $10.0B on 5,960,975 residents produces $407.20 per capita. Pennsylvania’s $28.1B on 13,078,751 residents produces $239.68. Pennsylvania still leads the stacked file and the award count (1,468,918 vs 181,419). FY2026 also favors Pennsylvania ($3.1B vs $2.4B). Intensity and stock are different rankings in this pair.

What industries lead Pennsylvania and Wisconsin federal awards?

Pennsylvania’s top industry is medicinal and botanical manufacturing. Wisconsin’s is direct health and medical insurance carriers. Those slices sit on $28.1B and $10.0B in obligations. They mark the largest grouping in each file, not every award in either state. Award counts are 1,468,918 in Pennsylvania and 181,419 in Wisconsin.

Are Pennsylvania vs Wisconsin figures Treasury outlays?

No. SpendingVault uses USAspending.gov obligations. Outlays are cash payments and can lag. The $28.1B and $10.0B stacked totals and FY2026 amounts of $3.1B 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.