Financial-condition comparison

MISSISSIPPI DHS vs VICKSWOOD

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

MISSISSIPPI DHS

JACKSON, MS

D

Health score

54.6

Total assets

$10.5M

View full profileData through 2026-Q2

Credit union

VICKSWOOD

Vicksburg, MS

B

Health score

80.1

Total assets

$11.5M

View full profileData through 2026-Q2

Answer first

Different strengths, no blanket winner

VICKSWOOD leads on financial health and capitalization and profitability 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

VICKSWOOD

Higher TFS health score

Capitalization

VICKSWOOD

Higher comparable capital ratio

Profitability

VICKSWOOD

Higher return on assets

Lending quality

VICKSWOOD

Lower problem-loan measure

Same-source detail

Financial metrics

Winner markers appear only where the metric definitions are comparable and both values are available.

MetricMISSISSIPPI DHSVICKSWOOD
TFS health score54.6/10080.1/100Leads
Total assets$10.5M$11.5M
Total deposits / shares$9.0M$8.4M
Net worth ratio13.22%25.81%Leads
Return on assets-0.57%1.22%Leads
Return on equity-4.28%4.72%Leads
60+ day delinquency1.79%0.00%Leads
Net charge-offs0.27%-0.01%Leads
Efficiency ratio——
Loan-to-deposit ratio50.28%60.55%
Asset growth (YoY)——
Deposit / share growth (YoY)——
Branches22
Published CFPB complaints per $1B deposits (12 months)verified mappings only——

Branch and market overlap

MISSISSIPPI DHS

2 branches

VICKSWOOD

2 branches

Both institutions report branches in 1 state: MS.

CFPB complaint coverage

MISSISSIPPI DHS

Unavailable

VICKSWOOD

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

MISSISSIPPI DHS

0 in TFS registry

VICKSWOOD

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

QuarterMISSISSIPPI DHS scoreMISSISSIPPI DHS ROAVICKSWOOD scoreVICKSWOOD ROA
2026-Q160.5/100-0.71%76.9/1001.10%
2026-Q254.6/100-0.57%80.1/1001.22%

Keep watching

Watch either institution—or both

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

MISSISSIPPI DHS
VICKSWOOD

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 MISSISSIPPI DHS 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.