Montana
West
State Power #45/51Per-capita #40
State Power
16.0
of 100 · #45
SPI
16.0
SCC
22.1
SDI
24.7
Pillar profile
Talent27.7
Capital15.3
Research20.8
Infrastructure21.8
Agentic24.7
Nearest peers (per-capita)
- North Dakota21.9
- Alabama20.8
- Maine24.0
- South Dakota20.1
- South Carolina25.7
Report · generated from Montana's indicators
Montana — standing in full
Montana is the #49 state by economic size ($65bn GSP) and ranks #45/51 on absolute State Power and #40/51 on per-capita intensity. No pillar stands out as a clear strength; the binding concern is infrastructure.
Economic & scale context
GDP
$65bn
#49 of 51
GDP / capita
$58k
Population
1.1M
AI investment
$0.5bn
#45 of 51
Notable AI orgs
6
Index & pillar read
| Index / pillar | Value | Standing | What a high vs low value means — and where Montana sits |
|---|---|---|---|
| SPI State Power | 16.0 | Lagging · #45/51 | Low here — 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 | 22.1 | Developing · #40/51 | 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 | 24.7 | Developing · #41/51 | 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 | 27.7 | Developing · #38/51 | 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 | 15.3 | Developing · #41/51 | 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 | 20.8 | Developing · #41/51 | 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 | 21.8 | Developing · #44/51 | 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 | 24.7 | Developing · #41/51 | 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 — Infrastructure 21.8 (#44/51, Developing): infrastructure gaps cap how much AI can actually be run locally.
▲
State values are curated v1 estimates on a consistent scale — not yet measured sub-national data.