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
Emporia, KS
Health score
79.7
Total assets
$381.3M
Bank
Leavenworth, KS
Health score
84.9
Total assets
$398.6M
Answer first
ESB Financial leads on profitability; Mutual Savings Association leads on financial health and capitalization and lending quality 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
Mutual Savings Association
Higher TFS health score
Capitalization
Mutual Savings Association
Higher comparable capital ratio
Profitability
ESB Financial
Higher return on assets
Lending quality
Mutual Savings Association
Lower problem-loan measure
Growth
Mutual Savings Association
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 | ESB Financial | Mutual Savings Association |
|---|---|---|
| TFS health score | 79.7/100 | 84.9/100Leads |
| Total assets | $381.3M | $398.6M |
| Total deposits / shares | $335.9M | $255.7M |
| Tier 1 capital ratio | 9.07% | 23.84%Leads |
| Return on assets | 1.69%Leads | 1.60% |
| Return on equity | 20.83%Leads |
ESB Financial
4 branches
Mutual Savings Association
6 branches
Both institutions report branches in 1 state: KS.
ESB Financial
Unavailable
Mutual Savings Association
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.
ESB Financial
0 in TFS registry
Mutual Savings Association
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 | ESB Financial score | ESB Financial ROA | Mutual Savings Association score | Mutual Savings Association ROA |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2024-Q3 | — | 0.82% | — | 1.40% |
| 2024-Q4 | — | 0.79% | — | 1.47% |
| 2025-Q1 | — | 1.24% | — | 1.51% |
| 2025-Q2 | — | 1.37% | — | 1.57% |
| 2025-Q3 | — | 1.36% | — | 1.57% |
| 2025-Q4 | — | 1.14% | — | 1.44% |
| 2026-Q1 | 78.5/100 | 1.58% |
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.
| 7.04% |
| Non-performing loans | 1.58% | 1.11%Leads |
| Net charge-offs | 0.02% | -0.01%Leads |
| Efficiency ratio | 59.38% | 55.21%Leads |
| Loan-to-deposit ratio | 80.16% | 107.24% |
| Asset growth (YoY) | 5.57% | 7.19%Leads |
| Deposit / share growth (YoY) | 7.13%Leads | 5.48% |
| Branches | 4 | 6 |
| Published CFPB complaints per $1B deposits (12 months)verified mappings only | — | — |
| 86.5/100 |
| 1.64% |
| 2026-Q2 | 79.7/100 | 1.69% | 84.9/100 | 1.60% |