Skip to main content
PensionRisk

Iowa Public Employees Retirement System (IPERS) vs UPS Retirement Plan

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

Iowa Public Employees Retirement System (IPERS) (A) and UPS Retirement Plan (A) are close on the PensionRisk rubric. Funding ratios sit at 85% and 91% 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

UPS Retirement Plan has a stronger Pension Health Score of 95/100 (A) compared to Iowa Public Employees Retirement System (IPERS) at 80/100 (A). Funding ratios differ by 5.9 percentage points (90.7% vs 84.8%). UPS Retirement Plan covers 243,932 participants.

MetricIowa Public Employees Retirement System (IPERS)UPS Retirement Plan
Health Score
Composite of funding ratio, trend, and PBGC risk
80/100 (A)95/100 (A)*
Funding Ratio
Assets as % of liabilities (100%+ is fully funded)
84.8%90.7%*
Total Assets$35.5B$9.7B
Total Liabilities$41.9B$10.7B*
Unfunded Liability$6.4B$993.0M*
Participants372,000243,932
1-Year Investment Return6.4%6.7%*
Plan Typepubliccorporate
PBGC Risk Levellowlow
SponsorState of IowaUnited Parcel Service

UPS Retirement Plan has a stronger Pension Health Score of 95/100 (A) compared to Iowa Public Employees Retirement System (IPERS) at 80/100 (A). Funding ratios differ by 5.9 percentage points (90.7% vs 84.8%). UPS Retirement Plan covers 243,932 participants.

Explore More

Iowa Public Employees Retirement System (IPERS) full profile|UPS Retirement Plan full profile

Related Comparisons