Skip to main content
PensionRisk

Wisconsin Retirement System (WRS) vs Colorado Public Employees Retirement Association (PERA)

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

Wisconsin Retirement System (WRS) and Colorado Public Employees Retirement Association (PERA) are meaningfully apart on the LakeQuality pension-health rubric: Wisconsin Retirement System (WRS) grades A while Colorado Public Employees Retirement Association (PERA) grades C. Funding ratios: 98% vs 65%.

Wisconsin Retirement System (WRS) 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

Wisconsin Retirement System (WRS) has a stronger Pension Health Score of 86/100 (A) compared to Colorado Public Employees Retirement Association (PERA) at 61/100 (C). Funding ratios differ by 33.6 percentage points (98.4% vs 64.8%). Wisconsin Retirement System (WRS) covers 665,000 participants.

MetricWisconsin Retirement System (WRS)Colorado Public Employees Retirement Association (PERA)
Health Score
Composite of funding ratio, trend, and PBGC risk
86/100 (A)*61/100 (C)
Funding Ratio
Assets as % of liabilities (100%+ is fully funded)
98.4%*64.8%
Total Assets$122.0B$58.0B
Total Liabilities$124.0B$89.5B*
Unfunded Liability$2.0B*$31.5B
Participants665,000625,000
1-Year Investment Return7.2%*5.5%
Plan Typepublicpublic
PBGC Risk Levellowhigh
SponsorState of WisconsinState of Colorado

Wisconsin Retirement System (WRS) has a stronger Pension Health Score of 86/100 (A) compared to Colorado Public Employees Retirement Association (PERA) at 61/100 (C). Funding ratios differ by 33.6 percentage points (98.4% vs 64.8%). Wisconsin Retirement System (WRS) covers 665,000 participants.

Explore More