Financial-condition comparison

The Bank of Glen Burnie vs The Harbor Bank of Maryland

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

Bank

The Bank of Glen Burnie

Glen Burnie, MD

C

Health score

68.2

Total assets

$394.9M

View full profileData through 2026-Q2

Bank

The Harbor Bank of Maryland

Baltimore, MD

C

Health score

68.7

Total assets

$383.2M

View full profileData through 2026-Q2

Answer first

Different strengths, no blanket winner

The Bank of Glen Burnie leads on lending quality and growth; The Harbor Bank of Maryland 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

The Harbor Bank of Maryland

Higher TFS health score

Capitalization

The Harbor Bank of Maryland

Higher comparable capital ratio

Profitability

The Harbor Bank of Maryland

Higher return on assets

Lending quality

The Bank of Glen Burnie

Lower problem-loan measure

Growth

The Bank of Glen Burnie

Higher year-over-year asset growth

Same-source detail

Financial metrics

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

MetricThe Bank of Glen BurnieThe Harbor Bank of Maryland
TFS health score68.2/10068.7/100Leads
Total assets$394.9M$383.2M
Total deposits / shares$357.0M$323.8M
Tier 1 capital ratio8.79%12.36%Leads
Return on assets-0.07%0.37%Leads
Return on equity-1.18%2.99%Leads
Non-performing loans0.25%Leads1.89%
Net charge-offs0.13%-0.01%Leads
Efficiency ratio95.41%90.04%Leads
Loan-to-deposit ratio74.08%69.87%
Asset growth (YoY)12.63%Leads-0.74%
Deposit / share growth (YoY)12.52%Leads-3.54%
Branches67
Published CFPB complaints per $1B deposits (12 months)verified mappings only——

Branch and market overlap

The Bank of Glen Burnie

6 branches

The Harbor Bank of Maryland

7 branches

Both institutions report branches in 1 state: MD.

CFPB complaint coverage

The Bank of Glen Burnie

Unavailable

The Harbor Bank of Maryland

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

The Bank of Glen Burnie

0 in TFS registry

The Harbor Bank of Maryland

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

QuarterThe Bank of Glen Burnie scoreThe Bank of Glen Burnie ROAThe Harbor Bank of Maryland scoreThe Harbor Bank of Maryland ROA
2024-Q3—0.04%—0.92%
2024-Q4—0.03%—0.70%
2025-Q1—0.22%—0.44%
2025-Q2—0.03%—0.25%
2025-Q3—0.09%—0.19%
2025-Q4—0.05%—0.22%
2026-Q167.3/1000.12%69.5/1000.60%
2026-Q268.2/100-0.07%68.7/1000.37%

Keep watching

Watch either institution—or both

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

The Bank of Glen Burnie
The Harbor Bank of Maryland

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 The Bank of Glen Burnie 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.