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
Charlotte, NC
Health score
75.3
Total assets
$16.0M
Bank
Dysart, IA
Health score
76.2
Total assets
$16.5M
Answer first
Cedar Hill National Bank leads on capitalization and profitability and lending quality and growth; Dysart State Bank leads on financial health. 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
Dysart State Bank
Higher TFS health score
Capitalization
Cedar Hill National Bank
Higher comparable capital ratio
Profitability
Cedar Hill National Bank
Higher return on assets
Lending quality
Cedar Hill National Bank
Lower problem-loan measure
Growth
Cedar Hill National 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 | Cedar Hill National Bank | Dysart State Bank |
|---|---|---|
| TFS health score | 75.3/100 | 76.2/100Leads |
| Total assets | $16.0M | $16.5M |
| Total deposits / shares | $2.0M | $13.3M |
| Tier 1 capital ratio | 67.56%Leads | 11.41% |
| Return on assets | 4.79%Leads | 2.15% |
| Return on equity | 6.74% | 19.10% |
Cedar Hill National Bank
1 branches
Dysart State Bank
1 branches
No shared branch states were found in the current TFS branch dataset.
Cedar Hill National Bank
Unavailable
Dysart State 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.
Cedar Hill National Bank
0 in TFS registry
Dysart State 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 | Cedar Hill National Bank score | Cedar Hill National Bank ROA | Dysart State Bank score | Dysart State Bank ROA |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2024-Q3 | — | 5.02% | — | 1.20% |
| 2024-Q4 | — | 5.40% | — | 1.15% |
| 2025-Q1 | — | 4.29% | — | 1.22% |
| 2025-Q2 | — | 4.70% | — | 1.69% |
| 2025-Q3 | — | 4.37% | — | 1.89% |
| 2025-Q4 | — | 4.75% | — | 1.81% |
| 2026-Q1 | 74.8/100 |
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 | 1.68% |
| Net charge-offs | 0.00% | -0.02%Leads |
| Efficiency ratio | 64.28% | 52.67%Leads |
| Loan-to-deposit ratio | 0.00% | 91.22% |
| Asset growth (YoY) | 1.64%Leads | -10.78% |
| Deposit / share growth (YoY) | 0.00%Leads | -10.74% |
| Branches | 1 | 1 |
| Published CFPB complaints per $1B deposits (12 months)verified mappings only | — | — |
| 4.57% |
| 84.1/100 |
| 1.88% |
| 2026-Q2 | 75.3/100 | 4.79% | 76.2/100 | 2.15% |