Compare Pension Plans Side-by-Side

A pension plan's headline number is its funding ratio — the value of plan assets divided by the present value of accrued benefit obligations. A plan reporting 80% funded has 80 cents of assets for every dollar of promised benefits, calculated at the plan's assumed discount rate. Comparing two plans on funding ratio alone can be misleading: a corporate plan disclosed under DOL Form 5500 uses a different liability discount than a state plan reported through the Public Plans Database, so the same dollar shortfall can look bigger or smaller on paper.

That is why each comparison surfaces six dimensions, not one. The Pension Health Score blends funding ratio (50% of the composite), 3-year funding trend (30%), and PBGC risk level (20%) into a single 0–100 index with an A–F letter grade. Comparing health scores answers the question most participants actually have: which of these two plans is in better shape, holding the regulatory regime constant. A plan that scores 78 (B) with an improving trend is in materially better condition than a plan scoring 85 (A) that has been deteriorating for three years.

The unfunded liability — liabilities minus assets — adds dollar context. A 75%-funded plan with $200 million in liabilities carries a $50 million gap; a 75%-funded plan covering 200,000 active and retired workers can carry a $5 billion gap. When the comparison view shows two similarly funded plans, the participant count and total dollars at stake are what determine how visible the plan's funding decisions become in budget cycles and collective bargaining.

The Pension Health Score is computed from three signals that come directly from the latest available filings. Funding ratio (50% weight) is taken from the most recent Form 5500 Schedule SB or MB for ERISA plans and from the Boston College CRR Public Plans Database for state and municipal plans. Funding trend (30% weight) measures the change in funding ratio across the three most recent valuation years — improvement adds points, decline subtracts. PBGC risk level (20% weight) reflects critical, endangered, or low-risk classifications published by the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation for covered private plans.

The full methodology documents every threshold and explains how plans without three valuation years are scored on partial data.

The right-hand plan's metrics are highlighted when they exceed the left-hand plan on each row, so you can scan the difference without re-reading. PBGC coverage applies only to corporate single-employer and multiemployer plans — public plans show "Not applicable" and rely on state-law protections instead. Trend arrows are computed from at least three valuation years; plans with shorter histories show "Insufficient data."

None of this is investment advice. Funding ratios shift with interest-rate moves, asset returns, and contribution policy decisions year to year, and a plan that looks weak on the most recent filing may be recovering on a multi-year arc. For decisions that affect retirement income, consult a fiduciary advisor and read your plan's most recent Annual Funding Notice directly.