Iowa
Midwest
State Power #30/51Per-capita #33
State Power
34.5
of 100 · #30
SPI
34.5
SCC
34.2
SDI
35.3
Pillar profile
Talent28.5
Capital23.1
Research32.7
Infrastructure51.5
Agentic35.3
Nearest peers (per-capita)
- New Mexico33.5
- Idaho35.1
- Nebraska35.6
- Kansas32.7
- Hawaii30.6
Report · generated from Iowa's indicators
Iowa, standing in full
Iowa is the #30 state by economic size ($230bn GSP) and ranks #30/51 on absolute State Power and #33/51 on per-capita intensity. No pillar stands out as a clear strength; the binding concern is talent.
Economic & scale context
GDP
$230bn
#30 of 51
GDP / capita
$72k
Population
3.2M
AI investment
$1.8bn
#33 of 51
Notable AI orgs
10
Index & pillar read
| Index / pillar | Value | Standing | What a high vs low value means, and where Iowa sits |
|---|---|---|---|
| SPI State Power | 34.5 | Moderate · #30/51 | 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 | 34.2 | Moderate · #33/51 | 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 | 35.3 | Developing · #34/51 | 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 | 28.5 | Developing · #37/51 | 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 | 23.1 | Developing · #34/51 | 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 | 32.7 | Moderate · #31/51 | 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 | 51.5 | Moderate · #30/51 | 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 | 35.3 | Developing · #34/51 | 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, Talent 28.5 (#37/51, Developing): a shallow talent base that constrains how much can be built locally.
▲
State values are curated v1 estimates on a consistent scale, not yet measured sub-national data.