The Compute Institute Jurisdiction Index
The Compute Institute Jurisdiction Index ranks 30 jurisdictions for AI data-center investment on the 0–100 Compute Institute Jurisdiction Competitiveness Index (JCI) across seven weighted dimensions: power availability & deliverability (20%), speed to build (17.5%), stability & execution risk (15%), power cost (12.5%), regulatory & AI policy (12.5%), capital & ecosystem depth (12.5%), and fiscal incentives (10%). Base scores admit only E1–E2 evidence — government primary records and company disclosures — and every input is traceable to a named, linked source. As of June 15, 2026 under methodology v0, Qatar leads at 77.4 (Tier 1, Advantaged), followed by US — Texas (ERCOT) at 72.3 and United Arab Emirates at 69.7. Qatar, United Arab Emirates, US — North Carolina (Duke Energy), Sweden, US — Ohio (AEP Ohio / PJM), Malaysia — Johor (Johor-Singapore SEZ), Germany, Ireland, Brazil, Argentina and Poland carry a positive outlook; Australia, Denmark, South Africa and Netherlands carry a negative outlook; all other outlooks are stable.
As of · Methodology v0 · How these scores are built
Explore the index your way
Weights are hypotheses, not verdicts. Re-weight the seven dimensions to your own thesis and the ranking recomputes live — the published methodology weights are just the default.
Start from a lens
Sub-national entries (US states, Johor) inherit their country's federal regulatory & AI-policy and stability scores — near-identical across a country's states by construction — so those two dimensions don't differentiate one state from another. They're flagged national when you filter to sub-national.
|
Rank
|
Jurisdiction
|
JCI score
|
Tier
|
Outlook
|
E1–E2 coverage
|
Top strength
|
Top weakness
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| #1 | Qatar | 77.4 /100 | 16/22 |
Stability & Execution Risk
(8.5/10)
|
Speed to Build
(0/10)
|
||
| #2 | US — Texas (ERCOT) | 72.3 /100 | 22/22 |
Stability & Execution Risk
(8/10)
|
Power Availability & Deliverability
(6.4/10)
|
||
| #3 | United Arab Emirates | 69.7 /100 | 20/22 |
Capital & Ecosystem Depth
(8/10)
|
Power Cost
(6.3/10)
|
||
| #4 | US — Arizona (APS/SRP) | 67.2 /100 | 20/22 |
Fiscal & Incentives
(7.7/10)
|
Power Availability & Deliverability
(5.1/10)
|
||
| #5 | US — Georgia (Southern/Georgia Power) | 67.2 /100 | 22/22 |
Stability & Execution Risk
(8.3/10)
|
Power Availability & Deliverability
(6/10)
|
||
| #6 | Saudi Arabia | 65.2 /100 | 21/22 |
Capital & Ecosystem Depth
(7.4/10)
|
Regulatory & AI Policy Environment
(5.7/10)
|
||
| #7 | US — North Carolina (Duke Energy) | 63.4 /100 | 14/22 |
Stability & Execution Risk
(7.8/10)
|
Speed to Build
(0/10)
|
||
| #8 | US — Rest of US (composite) | 63.4 /100 | 22/22 |
Stability & Execution Risk
(8.1/10)
|
Power Availability & Deliverability
(5.1/10)
|
||
| #9 | Sweden | 63.1 /100 | 18/22 |
Stability & Execution Risk
(8.8/10)
|
Speed to Build
(4/10)
|
||
| #10 | Canada | 62.3 /100 | 21/22 |
Stability & Execution Risk
(8.5/10)
|
Power Availability & Deliverability
(5.2/10)
|
||
| #11 | France | 62.3 /100 | 22/22 |
Stability & Execution Risk
(7.6/10)
|
Fiscal & Incentives
(5.5/10)
|
||
| #12 | Australia | 61.9 /100 | 20/22 |
Stability & Execution Risk
(8.6/10)
|
Fiscal & Incentives
(4.7/10)
|
||
| #13 | US — Virginia (PJM/Dominion) | 61.6 /100 | 22/22 |
Stability & Execution Risk
(8.3/10)
|
Power Availability & Deliverability
(3.9/10)
|
||
| #14 | US — Ohio (AEP Ohio / PJM) | 61.2 /100 | 16/22 |
Capital & Ecosystem Depth
(8/10)
|
Power Availability & Deliverability
(4.3/10)
|
||
| #15 | Denmark | 60.2 /100 | 18/22 |
Stability & Execution Risk
(8.9/10)
|
Power Availability & Deliverability
(4.2/10)
|
||
| #16 | US — Minnesota (Xcel / MISO) | 59.3 /100 | 18/22 |
Stability & Execution Risk
(8.4/10)
|
Capital & Ecosystem Depth
(3.3/10)
|
||
| #17 | Singapore | 59 /100 | 22/22 |
Stability & Execution Risk
(9/10)
|
Power Availability & Deliverability
(2.8/10)
|
||
| #18 | Malaysia — Johor (Johor-Singapore SEZ) | 58.9 /100 | 13/22 |
Power Availability & Deliverability
(6.8/10)
|
Speed to Build
(0/10)
|
||
| #19 | Japan | 58.6 /100 | 19/22 |
Regulatory & AI Policy Environment
(8/10)
|
Power Cost
(1.6/10)
|
||
| #20 | United Kingdom | 57 /100 | 22/22 |
Stability & Execution Risk
(8.2/10)
|
Power Cost
(3.3/10)
|
||
| #21 | Germany | 56.7 /100 | 19/22 |
Stability & Execution Risk
(8.3/10)
|
Power Cost
(3.2/10)
|
||
| #22 | India | 54.9 /100 | 22/22 |
Capital & Ecosystem Depth
(6.1/10)
|
Power Availability & Deliverability
(4.9/10)
|
||
| #23 | Ireland | 54.1 /100 | 16/22 |
Stability & Execution Risk
(8.5/10)
|
Speed to Build
(0/10)
|
||
| #24 | Indonesia | 53.6 /100 | 15/22 |
Capital & Ecosystem Depth
(7/10)
|
Power Availability & Deliverability
(3.9/10)
|
||
| #25 | South Africa | 52.3 /100 | 17/22 |
Speed to Build
(6.5/10)
|
Power Availability & Deliverability
(3.9/10)
|
||
| #26 | Brazil | 50.9 /100 | 17/22 |
Capital & Ecosystem Depth
(6.4/10)
|
Power Cost
(2.7/10)
|
||
| #27 | Argentina | 50.7 /100 | 21/22 |
Fiscal & Incentives
(7/10)
|
Stability & Execution Risk
(3/10)
|
||
| #28 | Poland | 50.7 /100 | 17/22 |
Stability & Execution Risk
(6.6/10)
|
Capital & Ecosystem Depth
(0/10)
|
||
| #29 | Netherlands | 50.3 /100 | 19/22 |
Capital & Ecosystem Depth
(8.5/10)
|
Power Availability & Deliverability
(2.8/10)
|
||
| #30 | South Korea | 49 /100 | 20/22 |
Capital & Ecosystem Depth
(7.9/10)
|
Power Cost
(2.2/10)
|
No jurisdictions match these filters.
Tiers: 1 Advantaged (≥75) · 2 Competitive (≥60) · 3 Contested (≥45) · 4 Constrained (≥30) · 5 Impaired (<30). E1–E2 coverage counts sub-factors scored on government primary records (E1) or company primary disclosures (E2); weaker evidence (E3–E5) never enters a base score — it can only move the outlook. Open any jurisdiction for the full sub-factor table with justifications, evidence levels, and linked sources.