G.A.P. vs GREATER PITTSBURGH
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.”
Credit union
G.A.P.
JOHNSTOWN, PA
Health score
84.8
Total assets
$79.0M
Credit union
GREATER PITTSBURGH
Pittsburgh, PA
Health score
78.6
Total assets
$76.7M
Answer first
Different strengths, no blanket winner
G.A.P. leads on financial health and profitability; GREATER PITTSBURGH leads on capitalization and lending quality. 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
Where each institution leads
Financial health
G.A.P.
Higher TFS health score
Capitalization
GREATER PITTSBURGH
Higher comparable capital ratio
Profitability
G.A.P.
Higher return on assets
Lending quality
GREATER PITTSBURGH
Lower problem-loan measure
Same-source detail
Financial metrics
Winner markers appear only where the metric definitions are comparable and both values are available.
| Metric | G.A.P. | GREATER PITTSBURGH |
|---|---|---|
| TFS health score | 84.8/100Leads | 78.6/100 |
| Total assets | $79.0M | $76.7M |
| Total deposits / shares | $67.8M | $64.6M |
| Net worth ratio | 13.74% | 15.35%Leads |
| Return on assets | 1.66%Leads | 1.57% |
| Return on equity | 12.06%Leads | 10.20% |
| 60+ day delinquency | 0.74% | 0.40%Leads |
| Net charge-offs | 0.33% | 0.19%Leads |
| Efficiency ratio | — | — |
| Loan-to-deposit ratio | 57.32% | 38.27% |
| Asset growth (YoY) | — | — |
| Deposit / share growth (YoY) | — | — |
| Branches | 6 | 7 |
| Published CFPB complaints per $1B deposits (12 months)verified mappings only | — | — |
Branch and market overlap
G.A.P.
6 branches
GREATER PITTSBURGH
7 branches
Both institutions report branches in 1 state: PA.
CFPB complaint coverage
G.A.P.
Unavailable
GREATER PITTSBURGH
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.
Regulatory-action context
G.A.P.
0 in TFS registry
GREATER PITTSBURGH
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
Health and profitability trend
| Quarter | G.A.P. score | G.A.P. ROA | GREATER PITTSBURGH score | GREATER PITTSBURGH ROA |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-Q1 | 77.0/100 | 1.29% | 76.8/100 | 1.44% |
| 2026-Q2 | 84.8/100 | 1.66% | 78.6/100 | 1.57% |
Keep watching
Watch either institution—or both
Get access to your dashboard watchlist and future financial-grade alerts.
Coverage boundaries
What this does not conclude
- • No product-rate, fee, or customer-service winner without product data.
- • Complaint comparisons appear only when both institutions have reviewed mappings and the same complete source window.
- • Regulatory actions are displayed separately and are not included in category scoring.
Related comparisons
Compare G.A.P. with similar peers
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. Every valid pair is viewable; pairs enter search automatically only when current data, comparability, and visitor interest meet the publication rules.