North Carolina
South
State Power #12/51Per-capita #16
State Power
63.3
of 100 · #12
SPI
63.3
SCC
58.1
SDI
61.6
Pillar profile
Talent50.9
Capital51.4
Research57.7
Infrastructure68.8
Agentic61.6
Nearest peers (per-capita)
- Georgia57.9
- Connecticut58.5
- Minnesota57.1
- Oregon59.1
- Florida54.8
Report · generated from North Carolina's indicators
North Carolina, standing in full
North Carolina is the #11 state by economic size ($730bn GSP) and ranks #12/51 on absolute State Power and #16/51 on per-capita intensity. Its strongest pillar is Research (57.7, Strong); no single pillar is a binding weakness.
Economic & scale context
GDP
$730bn
#11 of 51
GDP / capita
$68k
Population
10.7M
AI investment
$10.0bn
#12 of 51
Notable AI orgs
50
Index & pillar read
| Index / pillar | Value | Standing | What a high vs low value means, and where North Carolina sits |
|---|---|---|---|
| SPI State Power | 63.3 | Strong · #12/51 | 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 | 58.1 | Moderate · #16/51 | 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 | 61.6 | Strong · #15/51 | High here, agents are widely deployed locally, a near-term productivity multiplier. ▲ 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 | 50.9 | Moderate · #18/51 | 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 | 51.4 | Strong · #15/51 | 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 | 57.7 | Strong · #14/51 | High here, a strong research base feeding a pipeline of ideas and people. ▲ 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 | 68.8 | Moderate · #17/51 | 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 | 61.6 | Strong · #15/51 | High here, agents are actively deployed, an early-mover productivity edge. ▲ high: agents are actively deployed, an early-mover productivity edge · ▼ low: little agentic deployment, the near-term lever is unused |
Strengths to build on
- Research (57.7, Strong), a strong research base feeding a pipeline of ideas and people.
- Capital (51.4, Strong), abundant capital flowing into building cognitive infrastructure.
- Agentic (61.6, Strong), agents are actively deployed, an early-mover productivity edge.
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.