Omaha, NE vs San Francisco, CA
Side-by-side fiscal comparison · U.S. Census Bureau data (2023)
San Francisco, CA outspends Omaha, NE by a wide margin per resident — $184,131 versus $11,180, a 1547% difference. A gap this size usually reflects a structurally different service mix or accounting scope rather than a single line item.
Omaha, NE holds the stronger Fiscal Health Score, 90/100 (grade A) against 48/100 (grade D) for San Francisco, CA — a 42-point spread that puts the two in different grade territory.
Omaha, NE reports no outstanding debt per resident in its Census filing, while San Francisco, CA carries $2,031 per resident. Both cities pour the most per-resident dollars into the same function: parks and recreation leads in Omaha, NE at $742 per resident and in San Francisco, CA at $4,119.
They also fund themselves differently: other revenue is the largest single revenue source in Omaha, NE at 17% of total revenue, whereas San Francisco, CA relies most on intergovernmental transfers at 7%.
Summary
San Francisco spends 93.9% more per capita than Omaha ($172,951/person difference). Omaha, NE has the stronger Fiscal Health Score (A, 90/100).
Fiscal Health Score
Key Metrics
Per Capita Spending by Department
Revenue Breakdown (Per Capita)
| Property Tax | $624 | $148 |
| Sales Tax | $373 | $3,028 |
| Income Tax | $0 | $269 |
| Intergovernmental | $2,622 | $19,762 |
| Charges & Fees | $0 | $7,961 |
| Other | $4,672 | $18,918 |
Spending Breakdown (Per Capita)
| Police | $0 | $3,351 |
| Fire Protection | $0 | $2,281 |
| Highways & Roads | $319 | $0 |
| Public Welfare | $1,521 | $2,203 |
| Health | $456 | $1,911 |
| Hospitals | $0 | $6,939 |
| Parks & Recreation | $742 | $4,119 |
| Housing | $3,045 | $9,315 |
| Sewerage | $0 | $1,423 |
| Utilities | $581 | $21,190 |
| Interest on Debt | $0 | $22,798 |
| General Admin | $0 | $14,899 |
| Other | $4,516 | $93,702 |
Compare More Cities
Source: Census Annual Survey of State and Local Government Finances, 2026.