Georgia
South
State Power #9/51Per-capita #17
State Power
65.8
of 100 · #9
SPI
65.8
SCC
57.9
SDI
59.6
Pillar profile
Talent50.8
Capital56.2
Research51.5
Infrastructure71.4
Agentic59.6
Nearest peers (per-capita)
- North Carolina58.1
- Connecticut58.5
- Minnesota57.1
- Oregon59.1
- Florida54.8
Report · generated from Georgia's indicators
Georgia, standing in full
Georgia is the #9 state by economic size ($770bn GSP) and ranks #9/51 on absolute State Power and #17/51 on per-capita intensity. Its strongest pillar is Capital (56.2, Strong); no single pillar is a binding weakness.
Economic & scale context
GDP
$770bn
#9 of 51
GDP / capita
$71k
Population
10.9M
AI investment
$14.1bn
#9 of 51
Notable AI orgs
55
Index & pillar read
| Index / pillar | Value | Standing | What a high vs low value means, and where Georgia sits |
|---|---|---|---|
| SPI State Power | 65.8 | Strong · #9/51 | 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 | 57.9 | Moderate · #17/51 | 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 · #18/51 | 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 | 50.8 | Moderate · #19/51 | 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 | 56.2 | Strong · #11/51 | 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 | 51.5 | Moderate · #20/51 | 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 | 71.4 | Moderate · #16/51 | 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 · #18/51 | 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 (56.2, 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.