Skip to main content
PensionRisk

Illinois Municipal Retirement Fund (IMRF) vs Chicago Teachers Pension Fund

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

Illinois Municipal Retirement Fund (IMRF) and Chicago Teachers Pension Fund are meaningfully apart on the LakeQuality pension-health rubric: Illinois Municipal Retirement Fund (IMRF) grades A while Chicago Teachers Pension Fund grades D. Funding ratios: 81% vs 43%.

Illinois Municipal Retirement Fund (IMRF) comes out ahead on the composite rubric. For a participant in either plan, the spread is informative but not directly actionable — pension participation is not portable, so the relevant question is what each plan's funded-status trajectory means for that participant's benefit security.

Verdict

Illinois Municipal Retirement Fund (IMRF) has a stronger Pension Health Score of 80/100 (A) compared to Chicago Teachers Pension Fund at 44/100 (D). Funding ratios differ by 38.4 percentage points (81.2% vs 42.8%). Illinois Municipal Retirement Fund (IMRF) covers 438,000 participants.

MetricIllinois Municipal Retirement Fund (IMRF)Chicago Teachers Pension Fund
Health Score
Composite of funding ratio, trend, and PBGC risk
80/100 (A)*44/100 (D)
Funding Ratio
Assets as % of liabilities (100%+ is fully funded)
81.2%*42.8%
Total Assets$51.2B$12.4B
Total Liabilities$63.1B$29.0B*
Unfunded Liability$11.9B*$16.6B
Participants438,00069,000
1-Year Investment Return5.8%*4.6%
Plan Typepublicpublic
PBGC Risk Levellowcritical
SponsorState of IllinoisCity of Chicago

Illinois Municipal Retirement Fund (IMRF) has a stronger Pension Health Score of 80/100 (A) compared to Chicago Teachers Pension Fund at 44/100 (D). Funding ratios differ by 38.4 percentage points (81.2% vs 42.8%). Illinois Municipal Retirement Fund (IMRF) covers 438,000 participants.

Explore More

Related Comparisons