Oklahoma
South
State Power #33/51Per-capita #44
State Power
31.6
of 100 · #33
SPI
31.6
SCC
19.5
SDI
19.2
Pillar profile
Talent18.7
Capital14.9
Research18.1
Infrastructure26.4
Agentic19.2
Nearest peers (per-capita)
- Louisiana19.1
- South Dakota20.2
- Kentucky18.4
- Alabama20.9
- Wyoming17.8
Report · generated from Oklahoma's indicators
Oklahoma, standing in full
Oklahoma is the #31 state by economic size ($230bn GSP) and ranks #33/51 on absolute State Power and #44/51 on per-capita intensity. No pillar stands out as a clear strength; the binding concern is infrastructure.
Economic & scale context
GDP
$230bn
#31 of 51
GDP / capita
$57k
Population
4.0M
AI investment
$1.0bn
#41 of 51
Notable AI orgs
8
Index & pillar read
| Index / pillar | Value | Standing | What a high vs low value means, and where Oklahoma sits |
|---|---|---|---|
| SPI State Power | 31.6 | Moderate · #33/51 | 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 | 19.5 | Developing · #44/51 | 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 | 19.2 | Developing · #44/51 | 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 | 18.7 | Lagging · #45/51 | 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 | 14.9 | Developing · #43/51 | 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 | 18.1 | Developing · #44/51 | 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 | 26.4 | Lagging · #49/51 | 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 | 19.2 | Developing · #44/51 | 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 26.4 (#49/51, Lagging): 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.