San Francisco, CA vs Philadelphia, PA
Side-by-side fiscal comparison · U.S. Census Bureau data (2023)
San Francisco, CA outspends Philadelphia, PA by a wide margin per resident — $184,131 versus $56,272, a 227% difference. A gap this size usually reflects a structurally different service mix or accounting scope rather than a single line item.
San Francisco, CA edges Philadelphia, PA on the Fiscal Health Score by 3 points — 48/100 (grade D) to 45/100 (grade D). At a margin this narrow the grade is close enough that the factor-level detail matters more than the composite.
On debt, Philadelphia, PA carries the lighter load at $1,069 per resident versus $2,031 for San Francisco, CA. Their budgets diverge on where the largest per-resident dollars go: San Francisco, CA leads with parks and recreation at $4,119 per resident, while Philadelphia, PA leads with fire protection at $7,082.
On the revenue side both lean hardest on intergovernmental transfers — 7% of total revenue in San Francisco, CA and 16% in Philadelphia, PA.
Summary
San Francisco spends 227.2% more per capita than Philadelphia ($127,859/person difference). San Francisco, CA has the stronger Fiscal Health Score (D, 48/100).
Fiscal Health Score
Key Metrics
Per Capita Spending by Department
Revenue Breakdown (Per Capita)
| Property Tax | $148 | $0 |
| Sales Tax | $3,028 | $107 |
| Income Tax | $269 | $8 |
| Intergovernmental | $19,762 | $6,288 |
| Charges & Fees | $7,961 | $2,790 |
| Other | $18,918 | $4,029 |
Spending Breakdown (Per Capita)
| Police | $3,351 | $1,505 |
| Fire Protection | $2,281 | $7,082 |
| Highways & Roads | $0 | $1,215 |
| Public Welfare | $2,203 | $1,456 |
| Health | $1,911 | $229 |
| Hospitals | $6,939 | $4,048 |
| Parks & Recreation | $4,119 | $593 |
| Housing | $9,315 | $4,902 |
| Sewerage | $1,423 | $325 |
| Utilities | $21,190 | $4,222 |
| Interest on Debt | $22,798 | $3 |
| General Admin | $14,899 | $0 |
| Other | $93,702 | $30,692 |
Compare More Cities
Source: Census Annual Survey of State and Local Government Finances, 2026.