Skip to main content
PensionRisk

Illinois Municipal Retirement Fund (IMRF) vs New Jersey Public Employees Retirement System (PERS)

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

Illinois Municipal Retirement Fund (IMRF) and New Jersey Public Employees Retirement System (PERS) are meaningfully apart on the LakeQuality pension-health rubric: Illinois Municipal Retirement Fund (IMRF) grades A while New Jersey Public Employees Retirement System (PERS) grades C. Funding ratios: 81% vs 52%.

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 New Jersey Public Employees Retirement System (PERS) at 54/100 (C). Funding ratios differ by 28.9 percentage points (81.2% vs 52.3%). Illinois Municipal Retirement Fund (IMRF) covers 438,000 participants.

MetricIllinois Municipal Retirement Fund (IMRF)New Jersey Public Employees Retirement System (PERS)
Health Score
Composite of funding ratio, trend, and PBGC risk
80/100 (A)*54/100 (C)
Funding Ratio
Assets as % of liabilities (100%+ is fully funded)
81.2%*52.3%
Total Assets$51.2B$34.0B
Total Liabilities$63.1B*$65.0B
Unfunded Liability$11.9B*$31.0B
Participants438,000425,000
1-Year Investment Return5.8%*5.1%
Plan Typepublicpublic
PBGC Risk Levellowhigh
SponsorState of IllinoisState of New Jersey

Illinois Municipal Retirement Fund (IMRF) has a stronger Pension Health Score of 80/100 (A) compared to New Jersey Public Employees Retirement System (PERS) at 54/100 (C). Funding ratios differ by 28.9 percentage points (81.2% vs 52.3%). Illinois Municipal Retirement Fund (IMRF) covers 438,000 participants.

Explore More