Connecticut
Northeast
State Power #22/51Per-capita #15
State Power
46.8
of 100 · #22
SPI
46.8
SCC
58.5
SDI
62.6
Pillar profile
Talent56.7
Capital44.4
Research53.8
Infrastructure75.1
Agentic62.6
Nearest peers (per-capita)
- North Carolina58.1
- Georgia57.9
- Oregon59.1
- Minnesota57.1
- Florida54.8
Report · generated from Connecticut's indicators
Connecticut, standing in full
Connecticut is the #23 state by economic size ($320bn GSP) and ranks #22/51 on absolute State Power and #15/51 on per-capita intensity. Its strongest pillar is Talent (56.7, Strong); no single pillar is a binding weakness.
Economic & scale context
GDP
$320bn
#23 of 51
GDP / capita
$88k
Population
3.6M
AI investment
$7.0bn
#18 of 51
Notable AI orgs
22
Index & pillar read
| Index / pillar | Value | Standing | What a high vs low value means, and where Connecticut sits |
|---|---|---|---|
| SPI State Power | 46.8 | Moderate · #22/51 | 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 | 58.5 | Strong · #15/51 | 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 | 62.6 | Strong · #14/51 | 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 | 56.7 | Strong · #13/51 | 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 | 44.4 | Moderate · #19/51 | Mid-pack. High would mean abundant capital flowing into building cognitive infrastructure; low would mean 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 | 53.8 | Moderate · #17/51 | 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 | 75.1 | Strong · #13/51 | 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 | 62.6 | Strong · #14/51 | 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 (56.7, Strong), a deep talent pool, the scarcest input to building AI.
- Infrastructure (75.1, Strong), the physical and digital rails to run AI at scale are in place.
- Agentic (62.6, Strong), agents are actively deployed, an early-mover productivity edge.
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.