Montana
West
State Power #45/51Per-capita #40
State Power
16.7
of 100 · #45
SPI
16.7
SCC
23.8
SDI
24.7
Pillar profile
Talent27.2
Capital15.8
Research20.8
Infrastructure30.3
Agentic24.7
Nearest peers (per-capita)
- Maine23.9
- North Dakota23.7
- Alabama20.9
- South Dakota20.2
- South Carolina27.6
Report · generated from Montana's indicators
Montana, standing in full
Montana is the #49 state by economic size ($65bn GSP) and ranks #45/51 on absolute State Power and #40/51 on per-capita intensity. No pillar stands out as a clear strength; the binding concern is infrastructure.
Economic & scale context
GDP
$65bn
#49 of 51
GDP / capita
$58k
Population
1.1M
AI investment
$0.6bn
#44 of 51
Notable AI orgs
6
Index & pillar read
| Index / pillar | Value | Standing | What a high vs low value means, and where Montana sits |
|---|---|---|---|
| SPI State Power | 16.7 | Lagging · #45/51 | Low here, 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 | 23.8 | Developing · #40/51 | Low here, 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 | 24.7 | Developing · #41/51 | 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 | 27.2 | Developing · #38/51 | 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 | 15.8 | Developing · #41/51 | 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 | 20.8 | Developing · #41/51 | Low here, 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 | 30.3 | Developing · #42/51 | Low here, 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 | 24.7 | Developing · #41/51 | 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, Infrastructure 30.3 (#42/51, Developing): infrastructure gaps cap how much AI can actually be run locally.
▲
State values are curated v1 estimates on a consistent scale, not yet measured sub-national data.