Skip to main content
PensionRisk

Ohio Public Employees Retirement System (OPERS) vs Procter & Gamble Retirement Plan

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

Ohio Public Employees Retirement System (OPERS) and Procter & Gamble Retirement Plan are meaningfully apart on the LakeQuality pension-health rubric: Ohio Public Employees Retirement System (OPERS) grades A while Procter & Gamble Retirement Plan grades A. Funding ratios: 83% vs 99%.

Procter & Gamble Retirement Plan 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

Procter & Gamble Retirement Plan has a stronger Pension Health Score of 100/100 (A) compared to Ohio Public Employees Retirement System (OPERS) at 80/100 (A). Funding ratios differ by 16.9 percentage points (99.4% vs 82.5%). Procter & Gamble Retirement Plan covers 10,929 participants.

MetricOhio Public Employees Retirement System (OPERS)Procter & Gamble Retirement Plan
Health Score
Composite of funding ratio, trend, and PBGC risk
80/100 (A)100/100 (A)*
Funding Ratio
Assets as % of liabilities (100%+ is fully funded)
82.5%99.4%*
Total Assets$105.0B$1.2B
Total Liabilities$127.3B$1.2B*
Unfunded Liability$22.3B$7.6M*
Participants762,00010,929
1-Year Investment Return6.2%7.3%*
Plan Typepubliccorporate
PBGC Risk Levellowlow
SponsorState of OhioProcter & Gamble

Procter & Gamble Retirement Plan has a stronger Pension Health Score of 100/100 (A) compared to Ohio Public Employees Retirement System (OPERS) at 80/100 (A). Funding ratios differ by 16.9 percentage points (99.4% vs 82.5%). Procter & Gamble Retirement Plan covers 10,929 participants.

Explore More

Related Comparisons