Illinois Municipal Retirement Fund (IMRF) vs Minnesota Public Employees Retirement Association (PERA)
Side-by-side pension health comparison from DOL and public plan data
Illinois Municipal Retirement Fund (IMRF) (A) and Minnesota Public Employees Retirement Association (PERA) (B) are close on the LakeQuality rubric. Funding ratios sit at 81% and 79% 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 Minnesota Public Employees Retirement Association (PERA) at 71/100 (B). Funding ratios differ by 2.1 percentage points (81.2% vs 79.1%). Illinois Municipal Retirement Fund (IMRF) covers 438,000 participants.
| Metric | Illinois Municipal Retirement Fund (IMRF) | Minnesota Public Employees Retirement Association (PERA) |
|---|---|---|
| Health Score Composite of funding ratio, trend, and PBGC risk | 80/100 (A)* | 71/100 (B) |
| Funding Ratio Assets as % of liabilities (100%+ is fully funded) | 81.2%* | 79.1% |
| Total Assets | $51.2B | $35.0B |
| Total Liabilities | $63.1B | $44.2B* |
| Unfunded Liability | $11.9B | $9.2B* |
| Participants | 438,000 | 378,000 |
| 1-Year Investment Return | 5.8% | 5.9%* |
| Plan Type | public | public |
| PBGC Risk Level | low | moderate |
| Sponsor | State of Illinois | State of Minnesota |
Illinois Municipal Retirement Fund (IMRF) has a stronger Pension Health Score of 80/100 (A) compared to Minnesota Public Employees Retirement Association (PERA) at 71/100 (B). Funding ratios differ by 2.1 percentage points (81.2% vs 79.1%). Illinois Municipal Retirement Fund (IMRF) covers 438,000 participants.