Utah
West
State Power #20/51Per-capita #12
State Power
48.5
of 100 · #20
SPI
48.5
SCC
62.9
SDI
68.2
Pillar profile
Talent63.4
Capital55.4
Research52.0
Infrastructure75.5
Agentic68.2
Nearest peers (per-capita)
- Illinois64.1
- Pennsylvania60.6
- Maryland65.7
- Texas65.9
- Oregon58.7
Report · generated from Utah's indicators
Utah — standing in full
Utah is the #29 state by economic size ($250bn GSP) and ranks #20/51 on absolute State Power and #12/51 on per-capita intensity. Its strongest pillar is Talent (63.4, Strong); no single pillar is a binding weakness.
Economic & scale context
GDP
$250bn
#29 of 51
GDP / capita
$74k
Population
3.4M
AI investment
$7.0bn
#16 of 51
Notable AI orgs
35
Index & pillar read
| Index / pillar | Value | Standing | What a high vs low value means — and where Utah sits |
|---|---|---|---|
| SPI State Power | 48.5 | Moderate · #20/51 | 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 | 62.9 | Strong · #12/51 | High here — deep capability per resident — a concentrated, high-intensity AI economy. ▲ 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 | 68.2 | Strong · #10/51 | High here — agents are widely deployed locally — a near-term productivity multiplier. ▲ 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 | 63.4 | Strong · #10/51 | High here — a deep talent pool — the scarcest input to building AI. ▲ 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 | 55.4 | Strong · #10/51 | High here — abundant capital flowing into building cognitive infrastructure. ▲ high: abundant capital flowing into building cognitive infrastructure · ▼ low: thin investment — good ideas struggle to scale locally |
| Research Research | 52.0 | Moderate · #19/51 | Mid-pack. High would mean a strong research base feeding a pipeline of ideas and people; low would mean 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 | 75.5 | Strong · #10/51 | High here — the physical and digital rails to run AI at scale are in place. ▲ 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 | 68.2 | Strong · #10/51 | High here — agents are actively deployed — an early-mover productivity edge. ▲ high: agents are actively deployed — an early-mover productivity edge · ▼ low: little agentic deployment — the near-term lever is unused |
Strengths to build on
- Talent (63.4, Strong) — a deep talent pool — the scarcest input to building AI.
- Capital (55.4, Strong) — abundant capital flowing into building cognitive infrastructure.
- Infrastructure (75.5, Strong) — the physical and digital rails to run AI at scale are in place.
Risk factors
- No acute structural gaps stand out across the state pillars.
▲
State values are curated v1 estimates on a consistent scale — not yet measured sub-national data.