Financial-condition comparison

I.B.E.W. LU 66 vs P.I.E.

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.”

Build another comparison

Credit union

I.B.E.W. LU 66

PASADENA, TX

Health score

79.4

Total assets

$11.5M

View full profileData through 2026-Q2

Credit union

P.I.E.

Houston, TX

Health score

89.0

Total assets

$11.8M

View full profileData through 2026-Q2

Answer first

Different strengths, no blanket winner

I.B.E.W. LU 66 leads on lending quality; P.I.E. leads on financial health and capitalization and profitability. 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

P.I.E.

Higher TFS health score

Capitalization

P.I.E.

Higher comparable capital ratio

Profitability

P.I.E.

Higher return on assets

Lending quality

I.B.E.W. LU 66

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	I.B.E.W. LU 66	P.I.E.
TFS health score	79.4/100	89.0/100Leads
Total assets	$11.5M	$11.8M
Total deposits / shares	$9.8M	$8.9M
Net worth ratio	13.85%	23.88%Leads
Return on assets	0.62%	1.62%Leads
Return on equity	4.47%	6.76%

Branch and market overlap

I.B.E.W. LU 66

1 branches

P.I.E.

1 branches

Both institutions report branches in 1 state: TX.

CFPB complaint coverage

I.B.E.W. LU 66

Unavailable

P.I.E.

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

I.B.E.W. LU 66

0 in TFS registry

P.I.E.

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	I.B.E.W. LU 66 score	I.B.E.W. LU 66 ROA	P.I.E. score	P.I.E. ROA
2026-Q1	78.8/100	0.70%	87.5/100	1.64%
2026-Q2	79.4/100	0.62%	89.0/100	1.62%

Keep watching

Watch either institution—or both

Get access to your dashboard watchlist and future financial-grade alerts.

I.B.E.W. LU 66

P.I.E.

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 I.B.E.W. LU 66 with similar peers

REEVES COUNTY TEACHERS

BROWNFIELD

T & P LONGVIEW

MET TRAN

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.