MONTANA vs VALLEY FINANCIAL
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
MONTANA
Great Falls, MT
Health score
82.2
Total assets
$361.5M
Credit union
VALLEY FINANCIAL
Billings, MT
Health score
74.9
Total assets
$600.9M
Answer first
Different strengths, no blanket winner
MONTANA leads on financial health and capitalization and profitability; VALLEY FINANCIAL leads on 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
MONTANA
Higher TFS health score
Capitalization
MONTANA
Higher comparable capital ratio
Profitability
MONTANA
Higher return on assets
Lending quality
VALLEY FINANCIAL
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 | MONTANA | VALLEY FINANCIAL |
|---|---|---|
| TFS health score | 82.2/100Leads | 74.9/100 |
| Total assets | $361.5M | $600.9M |
| Total deposits / shares | $316.7M | $531.0M |
| Net worth ratio | 12.53%Leads | 10.68% |
| Return on assets | 0.99%Leads | 0.84% |
| Return on equity | 7.88% | 7.90%Leads |
| 60+ day delinquency | 0.26% | 0.25%Leads |
| Net charge-offs | 0.28%Leads | 0.36% |
| Efficiency ratio | — | — |
| Loan-to-deposit ratio | 78.31% | 87.50% |
| Asset growth (YoY) | — | — |
| Deposit / share growth (YoY) | — | — |
| Branches | 4 | 12 |
| Published CFPB complaints per $1B deposits (12 months)verified mappings only | — | — |
Branch and market overlap
MONTANA
4 branches
VALLEY FINANCIAL
12 branches
Both institutions report branches in 1 state: MT.
CFPB complaint coverage
MONTANA
Unavailable
VALLEY FINANCIAL
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
MONTANA
0 in TFS registry
VALLEY FINANCIAL
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 | MONTANA score | MONTANA ROA | VALLEY FINANCIAL score | VALLEY FINANCIAL ROA |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-Q1 | 80.5/100 | 0.91% | 75.0/100 | 0.87% |
| 2026-Q2 | 82.2/100 | 0.99% | 74.9/100 | 0.84% |
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 MONTANA 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.