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.”
Bank
Portsmouth, NH
Health score
72.4
Total assets
$373.4M
Bank
Newport, NH
Health score
82.1
Total assets
$424.3M
Answer first
Piscataqua Savings Bank leads on lending quality; Sugar River Bank leads on financial health and capitalization and profitability and growth. 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
Sugar River Bank
Higher TFS health score
Capitalization
Sugar River Bank
Higher comparable capital ratio
Profitability
Sugar River Bank
Higher return on assets
Lending quality
Piscataqua Savings Bank
Lower problem-loan measure
Growth
Sugar River Bank
Higher year-over-year asset growth
Same-source detail
Winner markers appear only where the metric definitions are comparable and both values are available.
| Metric | Piscataqua Savings Bank | Sugar River Bank |
|---|---|---|
| TFS health score | 72.4/100 | 82.1/100Leads |
| Total assets | $373.4M | $424.3M |
| Total deposits / shares | $298.1M | $364.3M |
| Tier 1 capital ratio | 13.67% | 14.13%Leads |
| Return on assets | 0.38% | 0.64%Leads |
| Return on equity | 3.45% | 5.59% |
Piscataqua Savings Bank
1 branches
Sugar River Bank
6 branches
Both institutions report branches in 1 state: NH.
Piscataqua Savings Bank
Unavailable
Sugar River Bank
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.
Piscataqua Savings Bank
0 in TFS registry
Sugar River Bank
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 | Piscataqua Savings Bank score | Piscataqua Savings Bank ROA | Sugar River Bank score | Sugar River Bank ROA |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2024-Q3 | — | -0.18% | — | 0.45% |
| 2024-Q4 | — | -0.23% | — | 0.43% |
| 2025-Q1 | — | -0.54% | — | 0.54% |
| 2025-Q2 | — | -0.30% | — | 0.52% |
| 2025-Q3 | — | -0.16% | — | 0.56% |
| 2025-Q4 | — | -0.10% | — | 0.58% |
| 2026-Q1 | 70.8/100 |
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.
| Non-performing loans | 0.00%Leads | 0.33% |
| Net charge-offs | 0.00%Leads | 0.03% |
| Efficiency ratio | 83.02% | 76.51%Leads |
| Loan-to-deposit ratio | 65.97% | 80.05% |
| Asset growth (YoY) | 1.85% | 4.88%Leads |
| Deposit / share growth (YoY) | 4.45% | 5.98%Leads |
| Branches | 1 | 6 |
| Published CFPB complaints per $1B deposits (12 months)verified mappings only | — | — |
| 0.36% |
| 81.6/100 |
| 0.63% |
| 2026-Q2 | 72.4/100 | 0.38% | 82.1/100 | 0.64% |