Ohio Public Employees Retirement System (OPERS) vs Illinois Municipal Retirement Fund (IMRF)
Side-by-side pension health comparison from DOL and public plan data
Verdict
Ohio Public Employees Retirement System (OPERS) has a stronger Pension Health Score of 80/100 (A) compared to Illinois Municipal Retirement Fund (IMRF) at 80/100 (A). Funding ratios differ by 1.3 percentage points (82.5% vs 81.2%). Ohio Public Employees Retirement System (OPERS) covers 762,000 participants.
| Metric | Ohio Public Employees Retirement System (OPERS) | Illinois Municipal Retirement Fund (IMRF) |
|---|---|---|
| Health Score Composite of funding ratio, trend, and PBGC risk | 80/100 (A) | 80/100 (A) |
| Funding Ratio Assets as % of liabilities (100%+ is fully funded) | 82.5%* | 81.2% |
| Total Assets | $105.0B | $51.2B |
| Total Liabilities | $127.3B | $63.1B* |
| Unfunded Liability | $22.3B | $11.9B* |
| Participants | 762,000 | 438,000 |
| 1-Year Investment Return | 6.2%* | 5.8% |
| Plan Type | public | public |
| PBGC Risk Level | low | low |
| Sponsor | State of Ohio | State of Illinois |
Ohio Public Employees Retirement System (OPERS) has a stronger Pension Health Score of 80/100 (A) compared to Illinois Municipal Retirement Fund (IMRF) at 80/100 (A). Funding ratios differ by 1.3 percentage points (82.5% vs 81.2%). Ohio Public Employees Retirement System (OPERS) covers 762,000 participants.