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
Geismar, LA
Health score
80.4
Total assets
$44.6M
Credit union
SLIDELL, LA
Health score
67.2
Total assets
$47.2M
Answer first
GEISMAR COMPLEX leads on financial health and profitability and lending quality; ST. TAMMANY leads on capitalization. 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
GEISMAR COMPLEX
Higher TFS health score
Capitalization
ST. TAMMANY
Higher comparable capital ratio
Profitability
GEISMAR COMPLEX
Higher return on assets
Lending quality
GEISMAR COMPLEX
Lower problem-loan measure
Same-source detail
Winner markers appear only where the metric definitions are comparable and both values are available.
| Metric | GEISMAR COMPLEX | ST. TAMMANY |
|---|---|---|
| TFS health score | 80.4/100Leads | 67.2/100 |
| Total assets | $44.6M | $47.2M |
| Total deposits / shares | $38.6M | $40.4M |
| Net worth ratio | 13.11% | 14.07%Leads |
| Return on assets | 1.01%Leads | 0.10% |
| Return on equity | 7.70%Leads |
GEISMAR COMPLEX
1 branches
ST. TAMMANY
4 branches
Both institutions report branches in 1 state: LA.
GEISMAR COMPLEX
Unavailable
ST. TAMMANY
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.
GEISMAR COMPLEX
0 in TFS registry
ST. TAMMANY
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 | GEISMAR COMPLEX score | GEISMAR COMPLEX ROA | ST. TAMMANY score | ST. TAMMANY ROA |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-Q1 | 76.5/100 | 0.84% | 66.0/100 | -0.02% |
| 2026-Q2 | 80.4/100 | 1.01% | 67.2/100 | 0.10% |
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. Every valid pair is viewable; pairs enter search automatically only when current data, comparability, and visitor interest meet the publication rules.
| 0.69% |
| 60+ day delinquency | 0.51%Leads | 1.02% |
| Net charge-offs | -0.15%Leads | 2.23% |
| Efficiency ratio | — | — |
| Loan-to-deposit ratio | 69.01% | 72.47% |
| Asset growth (YoY) | — | — |
| Deposit / share growth (YoY) | — | — |
| Branches | 1 | 4 |
| Published CFPB complaints per $1B deposits (12 months)verified mappings only | — | — |