Indiana
Midwest
State Power #23/51Per-capita #29
State Power
46.8
of 100 · #23
SPI
46.8
SCC
38.9
SDI
40.4
Pillar profile
Talent32.1
Capital31.1
Research38.4
Infrastructure52.6
Agentic40.4
Nearest peers (per-capita)
- Tennessee38.2
- Nevada40.2
- Rhode Island40.9
- Nebraska35.6
- Delaware42.3
Report · generated from Indiana's indicators
Indiana, standing in full
Indiana is the #19 state by economic size ($460bn GSP) and ranks #23/51 on absolute State Power and #29/51 on per-capita intensity. No pillar stands out as a clear strength; the binding concern is talent.
Economic & scale context
GDP
$460bn
#19 of 51
GDP / capita
$67k
Population
6.8M
AI investment
$3.1bn
#26 of 51
Notable AI orgs
16
Index & pillar read
| Index / pillar | Value | Standing | What a high vs low value means, and where Indiana sits |
|---|---|---|---|
| SPI State Power | 46.8 | Moderate · #23/51 | 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 | 38.9 | Moderate · #29/51 | 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 | 40.4 | Moderate · #29/51 | 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 | 32.1 | Developing · #35/51 | 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 | 31.1 | Moderate · #27/51 | 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 | 38.4 | Moderate · #28/51 | 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 | 52.6 | Moderate · #28/51 | 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 | 40.4 | Moderate · #29/51 | 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
- No pillar stands out as a clear strength yet.
Risk factors
- Binding weakness, Talent 32.1 (#35/51, 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.