There are tons of comparisons between 401(k) and pensions, with the most obvious being the concept of "defined contribution" vs. "defined benefit". This makes them a sort of apples to oranges comparison.
Of course, a 401(k)'s success is determined generally by factors such as the participant's investments, the matching contributions of the company, etc. A pension (to my understanding) is generally far more defined and structured, but not immune from changes (e.g., new laws, bankruptcy, union agreements, etc.)
My question, specificaly, is whether or not there is a standard methodology within the finance industry that can determine what factors would make a 401(k) a better option than a pension, given perhaps a standard set of variables?
While I understand you can do back-of-the-envelope math to do such a comparison, I was wondering if the finance industry has a standardized/objective way of doing this?