Florida
South
State Power #4/51Per-capita #19
State Power
74.1
of 100 · #4
SPI
74.1
SCC
54.8
SDI
59.6
Pillar profile
Talent51.5
Capital60.5
Research48.0
Infrastructure54.5
Agentic59.6
Nearest peers (per-capita)
- Minnesota57.1
- Georgia57.9
- Ohio51.5
- North Carolina58.1
- Arizona51.4
Report · generated from Florida's indicators
Florida, standing in full
Florida is the #4 state by economic size ($1,440bn GSP) and ranks #4/51 on absolute State Power and #19/51 on per-capita intensity. Its strongest pillar is Capital (60.5, Strong); no single pillar is a binding weakness.
Economic & scale context
GDP
$1,440bn
#4 of 51
GDP / capita
$65k
Population
22.2M
AI investment
$18.8bn
#7 of 51
Notable AI orgs
60
Index & pillar read
| Index / pillar | Value | Standing | What a high vs low value means, and where Florida sits |
|---|---|---|---|
| SPI State Power | 74.1 | Leading · #4/51 | High here, a heavyweight that anchors national AI capacity and pulls in capital and talent. ▲ 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 | 54.8 | Moderate · #19/51 | Mid-pack. High would mean deep capability per resident, a concentrated, high-intensity AI economy; low would mean 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 | 59.6 | Moderate · #17/51 | Mid-pack. High would mean agents are widely deployed locally, a near-term productivity multiplier; low would mean 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 | 51.5 | Moderate · #16/51 | Mid-pack. High would mean a deep talent pool, the scarcest input to building AI; low would mean 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 | 60.5 | Strong · #7/51 | 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 | 48.0 | Moderate · #21/51 | 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 | 54.5 | Moderate · #26/51 | Mid-pack. High would mean the physical and digital rails to run AI at scale are in place; low would mean 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 | 59.6 | Moderate · #17/51 | Mid-pack. High would mean agents are actively deployed, an early-mover productivity edge; low would mean 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
- Capital (60.5, Strong), abundant capital flowing into building cognitive infrastructure.
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.