Alabama
South
State Power #29/51Per-capita #42
State Power
35.2
of 100 · #29
SPI
35.2
SCC
20.8
SDI
20.2
Pillar profile
Talent18.8
Capital17.5
Research22.0
Infrastructure25.4
Agentic20.2
Nearest peers (per-capita)
- South Dakota20.1
- North Dakota21.9
- Montana22.1
- Maine24.0
- Oklahoma17.4
Report · generated from Alabama's indicators
Alabama — standing in full
Alabama is the #27 state by economic size ($280bn GSP) and ranks #29/51 on absolute State Power and #42/51 on per-capita intensity. No pillar stands out as a clear strength; the binding concern is talent.
Economic & scale context
GDP
$280bn
#27 of 51
GDP / capita
$55k
Population
5.1M
AI investment
$1.2bn
#33 of 51
Notable AI orgs
10
Index & pillar read
| Index / pillar | Value | Standing | What a high vs low value means — and where Alabama sits |
|---|---|---|---|
| SPI State Power | 35.2 | Moderate · #29/51 | Mid-pack. High would mean a heavyweight that anchors national AI capacity and pulls in capital and talent; low would mean limited absolute weight — a smaller node leaning on capacity built in larger states. ▲ high: a heavyweight that anchors national AI capacity and pulls in capital and talent · ▼ low: limited absolute weight — a smaller node leaning on capacity built in larger states |
| SCC State Coefficient | 20.8 | Developing · #42/51 | Low here — thin intensity per resident — capability is sparse relative to population. ▲ high: deep capability per resident — a concentrated, high-intensity AI economy · ▼ low: thin intensity per resident — capability is sparse relative to population |
| SDI State Agentic | 20.2 | Developing · #43/51 | Low here — agentic deployment is shallow — the local agent lever is under-used. ▲ high: agents are widely deployed locally — a near-term productivity multiplier · ▼ low: agentic deployment is shallow — the local agent lever is under-used |
| Talent Talent | 18.8 | Developing · #44/51 | Low here — a shallow talent base that constrains how much can be built locally. ▲ high: a deep talent pool — the scarcest input to building AI · ▼ low: a shallow talent base that constrains how much can be built locally |
| Capital Capital | 17.5 | Developing · #37/51 | Low here — thin investment — good ideas struggle to scale locally. ▲ high: abundant capital flowing into building cognitive infrastructure · ▼ low: thin investment — good ideas struggle to scale locally |
| Research Research | 22.0 | Developing · #39/51 | Low here — a weak research base — fewer home-grown breakthroughs and spinouts. ▲ high: a strong research base feeding a pipeline of ideas and people · ▼ low: a weak research base — fewer home-grown breakthroughs and spinouts |
| Infrastructure Infrastructure | 25.4 | Developing · #42/51 | Low here — infrastructure gaps cap how much AI can actually be run locally. ▲ high: the physical and digital rails to run AI at scale are in place · ▼ low: infrastructure gaps cap how much AI can actually be run locally |
| Agentic Agentic | 20.2 | Developing · #43/51 | Low here — little agentic deployment — the near-term lever is unused. ▲ high: agents are actively deployed — an early-mover productivity edge · ▼ low: little agentic deployment — the near-term lever is unused |
Strengths to build on
- No pillar stands out as a clear strength yet.
Risk factors
- Binding weakness — Talent 18.8 (#44/51, Developing): a shallow talent base that constrains how much can be built locally.
▲
State values are curated v1 estimates on a consistent scale — not yet measured sub-national data.