Wisconsin Retirement System (WRS) vs Minnesota Public Employees Retirement Association (PERA)
Side-by-side pension health comparison from DOL and public plan data
Wisconsin Retirement System (WRS) (A) and Minnesota Public Employees Retirement Association (PERA) (B) are close on the LakeQuality rubric. Funding ratios sit at 98% and 79% respectively — within a few points of each other.
With grades this close, the comparison turns on plan-specific factors: status (active vs frozen), participant maturity, sponsor financial health, and multi-year trajectory rather than the headline composite.
Verdict
Wisconsin Retirement System (WRS) has a stronger Pension Health Score of 86/100 (A) compared to Minnesota Public Employees Retirement Association (PERA) at 71/100 (B). Funding ratios differ by 19.3 percentage points (98.4% vs 79.1%). Wisconsin Retirement System (WRS) covers 665,000 participants.
| Metric | Wisconsin Retirement System (WRS) | Minnesota Public Employees Retirement Association (PERA) |
|---|---|---|
| Health Score Composite of funding ratio, trend, and PBGC risk | 86/100 (A)* | 71/100 (B) |
| Funding Ratio Assets as % of liabilities (100%+ is fully funded) | 98.4%* | 79.1% |
| Total Assets | $122.0B | $35.0B |
| Total Liabilities | $124.0B | $44.2B* |
| Unfunded Liability | $2.0B* | $9.2B |
| Participants | 665,000 | 378,000 |
| 1-Year Investment Return | 7.2%* | 5.9% |
| Plan Type | public | public |
| PBGC Risk Level | low | moderate |
| Sponsor | State of Wisconsin | State of Minnesota |
Wisconsin Retirement System (WRS) has a stronger Pension Health Score of 86/100 (A) compared to Minnesota Public Employees Retirement Association (PERA) at 71/100 (B). Funding ratios differ by 19.3 percentage points (98.4% vs 79.1%). Wisconsin Retirement System (WRS) covers 665,000 participants.