Chicago, IL vs Naperville, IL
Side-by-side fiscal comparison · U.S. Census Bureau data (2023)
Chicago, IL outspends Naperville, IL by a wide margin per resident — $34,551 versus $15,751, a 119% difference. A gap this size usually reflects a structurally different service mix or accounting scope rather than a single line item.
Chicago, IL holds the stronger Fiscal Health Score, 61/100 (grade C) against 45/100 (grade D) for Naperville, IL — a 16-point spread that puts the two in different grade territory.
On debt, Chicago, IL carries the lighter load at $977 per resident versus $1,028 for Naperville, IL. Their budgets diverge on where the largest per-resident dollars go: Chicago, IL leads with fire protection at $10,754 per resident, while Naperville, IL leads with health at $1,028.
They also fund themselves differently: intergovernmental transfers is the largest single revenue source in Chicago, IL at 100% of total revenue, whereas Naperville, IL relies most on charges and fees at 68%.
Summary
Chicago spends 119.4% more per capita than Naperville ($18,801/person difference). Chicago, IL has the stronger Fiscal Health Score (C, 61/100).
Fiscal Health Score
Key Metrics
Per Capita Spending by Department
Revenue Breakdown (Per Capita)
| Property Tax | $26 | $0 |
| Sales Tax | $74 | $0 |
| Income Tax | $229 | $0 |
| Intergovernmental | $85,083 | $458 |
| Charges & Fees | $2,847 | $4,765 |
| Other | $3,463 | $2,388 |
Spending Breakdown (Per Capita)
| Fire Protection | $10,754 | $0 |
| Highways & Roads | $930 | $0 |
| Public Welfare | $1,858 | $0 |
| Health | $426 | $1,028 |
| Hospitals | $1,444 | $0 |
| Parks & Recreation | $122 | $544 |
| Housing | $6,520 | $0 |
| Sewerage | $129 | $0 |
| Utilities | $2,983 | $4,527 |
| Other | $9,385 | $9,652 |
Compare More Cities
Source: Census Annual Survey of State and Local Government Finances, 2026.