This comparison uses public regulatory filings and TFS methodology. It evaluates financial condition—not checking rates, account fees, service quality, or which institution is universally “best.”
Bank
La Porte City, IA
Health score
79.1
Total assets
$126.3M
Bank
Pocahontas, IA
Health score
70.3
Total assets
$122.6M
Answer first
Cedar Valley Bank & Trust leads on financial health and profitability and lending quality; Pocahontas State Bank leads on capitalization and growth. Those category leads describe current regulatory metrics only and do not establish a universal product or service winner.
Capital and asset-quality definitions are directly comparable for this pair.
Category leaders
Financial health
Cedar Valley Bank & Trust
Higher TFS health score
Capitalization
Pocahontas State Bank
Higher comparable capital ratio
Profitability
Cedar Valley Bank & Trust
Higher return on assets
Lending quality
Cedar Valley Bank & Trust
Lower problem-loan measure
Growth
Pocahontas State Bank
Higher year-over-year asset growth
Same-source detail
Winner markers appear only where the metric definitions are comparable and both values are available.
| Metric | Cedar Valley Bank & Trust | Pocahontas State Bank |
|---|---|---|
| TFS health score | 79.1/100Leads | 70.3/100 |
| Total assets | $126.3M | $122.6M |
| Total deposits / shares | $114.5M | $83.1M |
| Tier 1 capital ratio | 9.01% | 26.35%Leads |
| Return on assets | 1.40%Leads | 0.50% |
| Return on equity | 15.71%Leads |
Cedar Valley Bank & Trust
2 branches
Pocahontas State Bank
2 branches
Both institutions report branches in 1 state: IA.
Cedar Valley Bank & Trust
Unavailable
Pocahontas State Bank
Unavailable
Counts use an explicitly reviewed CFPB-company-to-regulatory-ID mapping and the same complete 12-month window. Parent-company attribution can include complaints involving affiliates. Lower complaint volume is context—not proof of better service or less consumer harm.
Cedar Valley Bank & Trust
0 in TFS registry
Pocahontas State Bank
0 in TFS registry
Institution-level actions come from TFS's exact regulatory-ID registry and are shown as factual context only. They do not affect category winners or the TFS Financial Health Grade. A zero means no action is currently published in this curated registry—not proof that none exists.
Quarterly history
| Quarter | Cedar Valley Bank & Trust score | Cedar Valley Bank & Trust ROA | Pocahontas State Bank score | Pocahontas State Bank ROA |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2024-Q3 | — | 0.77% | — | 1.32% |
| 2024-Q4 | — | 0.82% | — | 1.31% |
| 2025-Q1 | — | 1.25% | — | 1.54% |
| 2025-Q2 | — | 1.32% | — | 1.56% |
| 2025-Q3 | — | 1.21% | — | 1.59% |
| 2025-Q4 | — | 1.08% | — | — |
| 2026-Q1 | 73.7/100 |
Keep watching
Get access to your dashboard watchlist and future financial-grade alerts.
Coverage boundaries
Related comparisons
Financial data comes from FDIC BankFind Suite or NCUA Call Reports as labeled. TFS Health Grades are an editorial assessment, not an official government rating or financial advice. Arbitrary comparison pairs are available dynamically but remain noindex unless curated for data completeness and user value.
| 1.83% |
| Non-performing loans | 1.27%Leads | 1.93% |
| Net charge-offs | 0.07%Leads | 0.17% |
| Efficiency ratio | 65.55% | 31.54%Leads |
| Loan-to-deposit ratio | 97.96% | 52.66% |
| Asset growth (YoY) | 5.07% | 6.88%Leads |
| Deposit / share growth (YoY) | 19.46%Leads | 1.23% |
| Branches | 2 | 2 |
| Published CFPB complaints per $1B deposits (12 months)verified mappings only | — | — |
| 1.23% |
| 81.2/100 |
| 1.88% |
| 2026-Q2 | 79.1/100 | 1.40% | 70.3/100 | 0.50% |