Vermont
Northeast
State Power #50/51Per-capita #37
State Power
10.5
of 100 · #50
SPI
10.5
SCC
30.5
SDI
33.3
Pillar profile
Talent34.4
Capital17.0
Research30.8
Infrastructure37.0
Agentic33.3
Nearest peers (per-capita)
- Hawaii30.6
- Kansas32.7
- South Carolina27.6
- New Mexico33.5
- Iowa34.2
Report · generated from Vermont's indicators
Vermont, standing in full
Vermont is the #51 state by economic size ($40bn GSP) and ranks #50/51 on absolute State Power and #37/51 on per-capita intensity. No pillar stands out as a clear strength; the binding concern is infrastructure.
Economic & scale context
GDP
$40bn
#51 of 51
GDP / capita
$62k
Population
0.7M
AI investment
$0.5bn
#47 of 51
Notable AI orgs
7
Index & pillar read
| Index / pillar | Value | Standing | What a high vs low value means, and where Vermont sits |
|---|---|---|---|
| SPI State Power | 10.5 | Lagging · #50/51 | 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 | 30.5 | Developing · #37/51 | 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 | 33.3 | Developing · #36/51 | 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 | 34.4 | Moderate · #29/51 | 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 | 17.0 | Developing · #39/51 | 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 | 30.8 | Moderate · #33/51 | 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 | 37.0 | Developing · #39/51 | 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 | 33.3 | Developing · #36/51 | 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 37.0 (#39/51, 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.