Oklahoma
South
State Power #34/51Per-capita #44
State Power
30.3
of 100 · #34
SPI
30.3
SCC
17.4
SDI
16.6
Pillar profile
Talent14.4
Capital14.1
Research18.1
Infrastructure23.9
Agentic16.6
Nearest peers (per-capita)
- Louisiana17.2
- Kentucky16.6
- Alaska14.9
- South Dakota20.1
- Wyoming14.5
Report · generated from Oklahoma's indicators
Oklahoma — standing in full
Oklahoma is the #31 state by economic size ($230bn GSP) and ranks #34/51 on absolute State Power and #44/51 on per-capita intensity. No pillar stands out as a clear strength; the binding concern is agentic.
Economic & scale context
GDP
$230bn
#31 of 51
GDP / capita
$57k
Population
4.0M
AI investment
$0.8bn
#41 of 51
Notable AI orgs
8
Index & pillar read
| Index / pillar | Value | Standing | What a high vs low value means — and where Oklahoma sits |
|---|---|---|---|
| SPI State Power | 30.3 | Developing · #34/51 | 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 | 17.4 | Developing · #44/51 | 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 | 16.6 | Lagging · #47/51 | 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 | 14.4 | Lagging · #46/51 | 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 | 14.1 | Developing · #44/51 | 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 | 18.1 | Developing · #44/51 | 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 | 23.9 | Developing · #43/51 | 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 | 16.6 | Lagging · #47/51 | 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 — Agentic 16.6 (#47/51, Lagging): little agentic deployment — the near-term lever is unused.
▲
State values are curated v1 estimates on a consistent scale — not yet measured sub-national data.