Skip to main content
PensionRisk

New Jersey Public Employees Retirement System (PERS) vs Iowa Public Employees Retirement System (IPERS)

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

New Jersey Public Employees Retirement System (PERS) and Iowa Public Employees Retirement System (IPERS) are meaningfully apart on the LakeQuality pension-health rubric: New Jersey Public Employees Retirement System (PERS) grades C while Iowa Public Employees Retirement System (IPERS) grades A. Funding ratios: 52% vs 85%.

Iowa Public Employees Retirement System (IPERS) 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

Iowa Public Employees Retirement System (IPERS) 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 32.5 percentage points (84.8% vs 52.3%). Iowa Public Employees Retirement System (IPERS) covers 372,000 participants.

MetricNew Jersey Public Employees Retirement System (PERS)Iowa Public Employees Retirement System (IPERS)
Health Score
Composite of funding ratio, trend, and PBGC risk
54/100 (C)80/100 (A)*
Funding Ratio
Assets as % of liabilities (100%+ is fully funded)
52.3%84.8%*
Total Assets$34.0B$35.5B
Total Liabilities$65.0B$41.9B*
Unfunded Liability$31.0B$6.4B*
Participants425,000372,000
1-Year Investment Return5.1%6.4%*
Plan Typepublicpublic
PBGC Risk Levelhighlow
SponsorState of New JerseyState of Iowa

Iowa Public Employees Retirement System (IPERS) 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 32.5 percentage points (84.8% vs 52.3%). Iowa Public Employees Retirement System (IPERS) covers 372,000 participants.

Explore More