Nebraska
Midwest
State Power #36/51Per-capita #31
State Power
29.2
of 100 · #36
SPI
29.2
SCC
35.6
SDI
37.9
Pillar profile
Talent33.0
Capital25.2
Research30.1
Infrastructure51.6
Agentic37.9
Nearest peers (per-capita)
- Idaho35.1
- Iowa34.2
- New Mexico33.5
- Tennessee38.2
- Kansas32.7
Report · generated from Nebraska's indicators
Nebraska, standing in full
Nebraska is the #36 state by economic size ($165bn GSP) and ranks #36/51 on absolute State Power and #31/51 on per-capita intensity. No pillar stands out as a clear strength; the binding concern is research.
Economic & scale context
GDP
$165bn
#36 of 51
GDP / capita
$84k
Population
2.0M
AI investment
$2.0bn
#28 of 51
Notable AI orgs
8
Index & pillar read
| Index / pillar | Value | Standing | What a high vs low value means, and where Nebraska sits |
|---|---|---|---|
| SPI State Power | 29.2 | Developing · #36/51 | 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 | 35.6 | Moderate · #31/51 | 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 | 37.9 | Moderate · #31/51 | 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 | 33.0 | Moderate · #32/51 | 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 | 25.2 | Moderate · #32/51 | 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 | 30.1 | Developing · #34/51 | 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 | 51.6 | Moderate · #29/51 | 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 | 37.9 | Moderate · #31/51 | 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, Research 30.1 (#34/51, Developing): a weak research base, fewer home-grown breakthroughs and spinouts.
▲
State values are curated v1 estimates on a consistent scale, not yet measured sub-national data.