Tulsa, OK vs San Francisco, CA
Side-by-side fiscal comparison · U.S. Census Bureau data (2023)
San Francisco, CA outspends Tulsa, OK by a wide margin per resident — $184,131 versus $5,250, a 3407% difference. A gap this size usually reflects a structurally different service mix or accounting scope rather than a single line item.
Tulsa, OK holds the stronger Fiscal Health Score, 56/100 (grade C) against 48/100 (grade D) for San Francisco, CA — a 8-point spread that puts the two in different grade territory.
Tulsa, OK reports no outstanding debt per resident in its Census filing, while San Francisco, CA carries $2,031 per resident. Their budgets diverge on where the largest per-resident dollars go: Tulsa, OK leads with health at $762 per resident, while San Francisco, CA leads with parks and recreation at $4,119.
Summary
San Francisco spends 97.1% more per capita than Tulsa ($178,881/person difference). Tulsa, OK has the stronger Fiscal Health Score (C, 56/100).
Fiscal Health Score
Key Metrics
Per Capita Spending by Department
Revenue Breakdown (Per Capita)
| Property Tax | $0 | $148 |
| Sales Tax | $97 | $3,028 |
| Income Tax | $0 | $269 |
| Intergovernmental | $0 | $19,762 |
| Charges & Fees | $0 | $7,961 |
| Other | $53 | $18,918 |
Spending Breakdown (Per Capita)
| Police | $628 | $3,351 |
| Fire Protection | $196 | $2,281 |
| Highways & Roads | $257 | $0 |
| Public Welfare | $86 | $2,203 |
| Health | $762 | $1,911 |
| Hospitals | $0 | $6,939 |
| Parks & Recreation | $154 | $4,119 |
| Housing | $350 | $9,315 |
| Sewerage | $27 | $1,423 |
| Utilities | $41 | $21,190 |
| Interest on Debt | $0 | $22,798 |
| General Admin | $0 | $14,899 |
| Other | $2,748 | $93,702 |
Compare More Cities
Source: Census Annual Survey of State and Local Government Finances, 2026.