Omaha, NE vs Tulsa, OK
Side-by-side fiscal comparison · U.S. Census Bureau data (2023)
Omaha, NE outspends Tulsa, OK by a wide margin per resident — $11,180 versus $5,250, a 113% 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 56/100 (grade C) for Tulsa, OK — a 34-point spread that puts the two in different grade territory.
Neither city reports outstanding debt per resident in its current Census filing, which removes debt service as a point of difference between them. Their budgets diverge on where the largest per-resident dollars go: Omaha, NE leads with parks and recreation at $742 per resident, while Tulsa, OK leads with health at $762.
Summary
Omaha spends 112.9% more per capita than Tulsa ($5,930/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 | $0 |
| Sales Tax | $373 | $97 |
| Intergovernmental | $2,622 | $0 |
| Other | $4,672 | $53 |
Spending Breakdown (Per Capita)
| Police | $0 | $628 |
| Fire Protection | $0 | $196 |
| Highways & Roads | $319 | $257 |
| Public Welfare | $1,521 | $86 |
| Health | $456 | $762 |
| Parks & Recreation | $742 | $154 |
| Housing | $3,045 | $350 |
| Sewerage | $0 | $27 |
| Utilities | $581 | $41 |
| Other | $4,516 | $2,748 |
Compare More Cities
Source: Census Annual Survey of State and Local Government Finances, 2026.