Arizona State Retirement System (ASRS) vs Illinois Municipal Retirement Fund (IMRF)
Side-by-side pension health comparison from DOL and public plan data
Arizona State Retirement System (ASRS) (B) and Illinois Municipal Retirement Fund (IMRF) (A) are close on the LakeQuality rubric. Funding ratios sit at 72% and 81% respectively — within a few points of each other.
With grades this close, the comparison turns on plan-specific factors: status (active vs frozen), participant maturity, sponsor financial health, and multi-year trajectory rather than the headline composite.
Verdict
Illinois Municipal Retirement Fund (IMRF) has a stronger Pension Health Score of 80/100 (A) compared to Arizona State Retirement System (ASRS) at 68/100 (B). Funding ratios differ by 8.9 percentage points (81.2% vs 72.3%). Illinois Municipal Retirement Fund (IMRF) covers 438,000 participants.
| Metric | Arizona State Retirement System (ASRS) | Illinois Municipal Retirement Fund (IMRF) |
|---|---|---|
| Health Score Composite of funding ratio, trend, and PBGC risk | 68/100 (B) | 80/100 (A)* |
| Funding Ratio Assets as % of liabilities (100%+ is fully funded) | 72.3% | 81.2%* |
| Total Assets | $46.0B | $51.2B |
| Total Liabilities | $63.6B | $63.1B* |
| Unfunded Liability | $17.6B | $11.9B* |
| Participants | 588,000 | 438,000 |
| 1-Year Investment Return | 5.8% | 5.8% |
| Plan Type | public | public |
| PBGC Risk Level | moderate | low |
| Sponsor | State of Arizona | State of Illinois |
Illinois Municipal Retirement Fund (IMRF) has a stronger Pension Health Score of 80/100 (A) compared to Arizona State Retirement System (ASRS) at 68/100 (B). Funding ratios differ by 8.9 percentage points (81.2% vs 72.3%). Illinois Municipal Retirement Fund (IMRF) covers 438,000 participants.