Philadelphia, PA vs San Jose, CA
Side-by-side fiscal comparison · U.S. Census Bureau data (2023)
Philadelphia, PA outspends San Jose, CA by a wide margin per resident — $56,272 versus $17,934, a 214% difference. A gap this size usually reflects a structurally different service mix or accounting scope rather than a single line item.
San Jose, CA holds the stronger Fiscal Health Score, 90/100 (grade A) against 45/100 (grade D) for Philadelphia, PA — a 45-point spread that puts the two in different grade territory.
San Jose, CA reports no outstanding debt per resident in its Census filing, while Philadelphia, PA carries $1,069 per resident. Their budgets diverge on where the largest per-resident dollars go: Philadelphia, PA leads with fire protection at $7,082 per resident, while San Jose, CA leads with parks and recreation at $1,424.
They also fund themselves differently: intergovernmental transfers is the largest single revenue source in Philadelphia, PA at 16% of total revenue, whereas San Jose, CA relies most on other revenue at 9%.
Summary
Philadelphia spends 213.8% more per capita than San Jose ($38,338/person difference). San Jose, CA 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 | $0 | $40 |
| Sales Tax | $107 | $315 |
| Income Tax | $8 | $1,935 |
| Intergovernmental | $6,288 | $2,680 |
| Charges & Fees | $2,790 | $608 |
| Other | $4,029 | $3,519 |
Spending Breakdown (Per Capita)
| Police | $1,505 | $0 |
| Fire Protection | $7,082 | $0 |
| Highways & Roads | $1,215 | $0 |
| Public Welfare | $1,456 | $810 |
| Health | $229 | $609 |
| Hospitals | $4,048 | $1,254 |
| Parks & Recreation | $593 | $1,424 |
| Housing | $4,902 | $4,897 |
| Sewerage | $325 | $161 |
| Utilities | $4,222 | $2,533 |
| Interest on Debt | $3 | $0 |
| Other | $30,692 | $6,247 |
Compare More Cities
Source: Census Annual Survey of State and Local Government Finances, 2026.