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
Fort Worth, TX
Health score
54.8
Total assets
$5.3M
Credit union
Pampa, TX
Health score
90.2
Total assets
$5.4M
Answer first
NATURAL RESOURCES CONSERVATION SERV leads on capitalization; PAMPA MUNICIPAL leads on financial health 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
Financial health
PAMPA MUNICIPAL
Higher TFS health score
Capitalization
NATURAL RESOURCES CONSERVATION SERV
Higher comparable capital ratio
Profitability
PAMPA MUNICIPAL
Higher return on assets
Lending quality
PAMPA MUNICIPAL
Lower problem-loan measure
Same-source detail
Winner markers appear only where the metric definitions are comparable and both values are available.
| Metric | NATURAL RESOURCES CONSERVATION SERV | PAMPA MUNICIPAL |
|---|---|---|
| TFS health score | 54.8/100 | 90.2/100Leads |
| Total assets | $5.3M | $5.4M |
| Total deposits / shares | $4.0M | $4.6M |
| Net worth ratio | 22.88%Leads | 14.02% |
| Return on assets | -1.65% | 1.60%Leads |
| Return on equity | -7.21% | 11.42% |
NATURAL RESOURCES CONSERVATION SERV
3 branches
PAMPA MUNICIPAL
1 branches
Both institutions report branches in 1 state: TX.
NATURAL RESOURCES CONSERVATION SERV
Unavailable
PAMPA MUNICIPAL
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.
NATURAL RESOURCES CONSERVATION SERV
0 in TFS registry
PAMPA MUNICIPAL
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.
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. Arbitrary comparison pairs are available dynamically but remain noindex unless curated for data completeness and user value.
| 60+ day delinquency | 1.85% | 1.37%Leads |
| Net charge-offs | -0.01% | -0.03%Leads |
| Efficiency ratio | — | — |
| Loan-to-deposit ratio | 44.84% | 91.88% |
| Asset growth (YoY) | — | — |
| Deposit / share growth (YoY) | — | — |
| Branches | 3 | 1 |
| Published CFPB complaints per $1B deposits (12 months)verified mappings only | — | — |