Side-by-side · Q2 2026 data
First Federal Savings of Middletown vs International Bank of Chicago
Metric by metric
| Measure | First Federal Savings of Middletown | International Bank of Chicago |
|---|---|---|
| TellerScore | 89 (stronger) | 82 |
| Capital cushion | 100 (stronger) | 75 |
| Loan quality | 100 (stronger) | 98 |
| Earnings | 94 (stronger) | 93 |
| Funding & liquidity | 37 | 46 (stronger) |
| Problem-loan coverage | 100 (stronger) | 91 |
| Peer percentile | 94th | 82nd |
| Total assets | $188.0M | $982.7M |
| Deposits / shares | $112.3M | $863.0M |
| Capital ratio | 36.94% (stronger) | 12.54% |
| Problem loans | 0.00% (stronger) | 0.05% |
| Net charge-offs | 0.46% | -0.00% (stronger) |
| Return on assets | 1.86% (stronger) | 1.82% |
| Loans ÷ deposits | 132.6% | 85.2% (stronger) |
| Uninsured deposits | 26.9% (stronger) | 41.4% |
| Offices | 1 | 6 |
| CFPB complaints (3 yrs) | — | — |
| Complaints per $1B deposits | — | — |
| Mortgage denial rate (HMDA) | — | 8.1% |
First Federal Savings of Middletown has the higher TellerScore (89 vs 82). On the 7 directional measures above (where higher or lower is clearly better), First Federal Savings of Middletown leads on 5 and International Bank of Chicago on 2. They differ a lot in size, so ratios such as capital and liquidity are naturally different — the peer percentile shows how each compares with institutions its own size. Deposits are insured up to $250,000 per depositor, per ownership category, at both.