Maryland State Retirement & Pension System vs Iowa Public Employees Retirement System (IPERS)
Side-by-side pension health comparison from DOL and public plan data
Maryland State Retirement & Pension System (B) and Iowa Public Employees Retirement System (IPERS) (A) are close on the LakeQuality rubric. Funding ratios sit at 72% and 85% 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
Iowa Public Employees Retirement System (IPERS) has a stronger Pension Health Score of 80/100 (A) compared to Maryland State Retirement & Pension System at 67/100 (B). Funding ratios differ by 12.7 percentage points (84.8% vs 72.1%). Iowa Public Employees Retirement System (IPERS) covers 372,000 participants.
| Metric | Maryland State Retirement & Pension System | Iowa Public Employees Retirement System (IPERS) |
|---|---|---|
| Health Score Composite of funding ratio, trend, and PBGC risk | 67/100 (B) | 80/100 (A)* |
| Funding Ratio Assets as % of liabilities (100%+ is fully funded) | 72.1% | 84.8%* |
| Total Assets | $61.0B | $35.5B |
| Total Liabilities | $84.6B | $41.9B* |
| Unfunded Liability | $23.6B | $6.4B* |
| Participants | 398,000 | 372,000 |
| 1-Year Investment Return | 5.8% | 6.4%* |
| Plan Type | public | public |
| PBGC Risk Level | moderate | low |
| Sponsor | State of Maryland | State of Iowa |
Iowa Public Employees Retirement System (IPERS) has a stronger Pension Health Score of 80/100 (A) compared to Maryland State Retirement & Pension System at 67/100 (B). Funding ratios differ by 12.7 percentage points (84.8% vs 72.1%). Iowa Public Employees Retirement System (IPERS) covers 372,000 participants.