Utah
West
State Power #19/51Per-capita #12
State Power
49.8
of 100 · #19
SPI
49.8
SCC
63.9
SDI
68.2
Pillar profile
Talent61.4
Capital57.7
Research52.0
Infrastructure80.4
Agentic68.2
Nearest peers (per-capita)
- Pennsylvania62.5
- Illinois65.4
- Texas65.4
- Maryland65.6
- Colorado66.7
Report · generated from Utah's indicators
Utah, standing in full
Utah is the #29 state by economic size ($250bn GSP) and ranks #19/51 on absolute State Power and #12/51 on per-capita intensity. Its strongest pillar is Capital (57.7, Strong); no single pillar is a binding weakness.
Economic & scale context
GDP
$250bn
#29 of 51
GDP / capita
$74k
Population
3.4M
AI investment
$8.8bn
#15 of 51
Notable AI orgs
35
Index & pillar read
| Index / pillar | Value | Standing | What a high vs low value means, and where Utah sits |
|---|---|---|---|
| SPI State Power | 49.8 | Moderate · #19/51 | 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 | 63.9 | Strong · #12/51 | High here, deep capability per resident, a concentrated, high-intensity AI economy. ▲ 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 | 68.2 | Strong · #10/51 | 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 | 61.4 | Strong · #10/51 | High here, a deep talent pool, the scarcest input to building AI. ▲ 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 | 57.7 | Strong · #8/51 | 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 | 52.0 | Moderate · #19/51 | 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 | 80.4 | Strong · #9/51 | High here, the physical and digital rails to run AI at scale are in place. ▲ 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 | 68.2 | Strong · #10/51 | 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
- Capital (57.7, Strong), abundant capital flowing into building cognitive infrastructure.
- Infrastructure (80.4, Strong), the physical and digital rails to run AI at scale are in place.
- Talent (61.4, Strong), a deep talent pool, the scarcest input to building AI.
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.