Wisconsinvs.Minnesota
Upper Midwest neighbors, measured side by side.
Winner = larger qualifying share of that state’s age-and-sex cohort. Not raw population.
One variable changed: state.
The Census-derived filters are observed jointly inside each state’s weighted records. The national height and BMI distributions are modeled afterward and do not vary by state.
“1 in N” is the reciprocal of the surviving share within that state, sex, and age cohort. It is not the probability of finding a match.
Is dating better in Wisconsin or Minnesota?
This model cannot decide where dating is “better.” At the displayed standards, Minnesota has the wider qualifying pool of men by cohort share and Minnesota has the wider qualifying pool of women. Compatibility, intent, orientation, city, and app activity are not measured.
Which state has more qualifying men: Wisconsin or Minnesota?
Minnesota has the larger share at these fixed filters. Wisconsin estimates 0.686% of men ages 25–35, while Minnesota estimates 0.723%.
Which state has more qualifying women: Wisconsin or Minnesota?
Minnesota has the larger share at these fixed filters. Wisconsin estimates 0.0026% of women ages 25–35, while Minnesota estimates 0.0052%.
Where do these state dating-pool numbers come from?
Age, income, education, sex, and current marital status are jointly weighted from 2024 American Community Survey one-year PUMS records for each state. Height and BMI use separately labeled national CDC/NCHS models.
Does the bigger state automatically win?
No. The winner uses the qualifying share within each selected state age-and-sex cohort, not raw headcount. Estimated headcount is shown as context.
Sources: 2024 ACS PUMS ↗, CDC measured height ↗, and CDC BMI prevalence ↗.