Skip to main content
PensionRisk

State Teachers Retirement System of Ohio (STRS Ohio) vs Procter & Gamble Retirement Plan

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

State Teachers Retirement System of Ohio (STRS Ohio) and Procter & Gamble Retirement Plan are meaningfully apart on the LakeQuality pension-health rubric: State Teachers Retirement System of Ohio (STRS Ohio) grades A while Procter & Gamble Retirement Plan grades A. Funding ratios: 80% 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 State Teachers Retirement System of Ohio (STRS Ohio) at 80/100 (A). Funding ratios differ by 19.1 percentage points (99.4% vs 80.2%). Procter & Gamble Retirement Plan covers 10,929 participants.

MetricState Teachers Retirement System of Ohio (STRS Ohio)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)
80.2%99.4%*
Total Assets$90.0B$1.2B
Total Liabilities$112.2B$1.2B*
Unfunded Liability$22.2B$7.6M*
Participants507,00010,929
1-Year Investment Return6.0%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 State Teachers Retirement System of Ohio (STRS Ohio) at 80/100 (A). Funding ratios differ by 19.1 percentage points (99.4% vs 80.2%). Procter & Gamble Retirement Plan covers 10,929 participants.

Explore More

Related Comparisons