Skip to main content
PensionRisk

Florida Retirement System (FRS) vs North Carolina Retirement Systems

Side-by-side pension health comparison from DOL and public plan data

Florida Retirement System (FRS) (B) and North Carolina Retirement Systems (A) are close on the PensionRisk rubric. Funding ratios sit at 82% and 87% 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.

Reviewed by PensionRisk Editorial Team · Updated

Verdict

North Carolina Retirement Systems has a stronger Pension Health Score of 82/100 (A) compared to Florida Retirement System (FRS) at 76/100 (B). Funding ratios differ by 4.9 percentage points (87.1% vs 82.2%). North Carolina Retirement Systems covers 960,000 participants.

MetricFlorida Retirement System (FRS)North Carolina Retirement Systems
Health Score
Composite of funding ratio, trend, and PBGC risk
76/100 (B)82/100 (A)*
Funding Ratio
Assets as % of liabilities (100%+ is fully funded)
82.2%87.1%*
Total Assets$190.0B$112.0B
Total Liabilities$231.1B$128.6B*
Unfunded Liability$41.1B$16.6B*
Participants1,065,000960,000
1-Year Investment Return6.5%6.6%*
Plan Typepublicpublic
PBGC Risk Levellowlow
SponsorState of FloridaState of North Carolina

North Carolina Retirement Systems has a stronger Pension Health Score of 82/100 (A) compared to Florida Retirement System (FRS) at 76/100 (B). Funding ratios differ by 4.9 percentage points (87.1% vs 82.2%). North Carolina Retirement Systems covers 960,000 participants.

Explore More

Florida Retirement System (FRS) full profile|North Carolina Retirement Systems full profile

Related Comparisons