Side-by-side · Q2 2026 data
Hills Bank and Trust Company vs Chelsea Savings Bank
Metric by metric
| Measure | Hills Bank and Trust Company | Chelsea Savings Bank |
|---|---|---|
| TellerScore | 84 | 93 (stronger) |
| Capital cushion | 84 | 100 (stronger) |
| Loan quality | 87 | 92 (stronger) |
| Earnings | 100 (stronger) | 90 |
| Funding & liquidity | 48 | 84 (stronger) |
| Problem-loan coverage | 96 | 98 (stronger) |
| Peer percentile | 95th | 98th |
| Total assets | $4.8B | $196.9M |
| Deposits / shares | $3.5B | $173.8M |
| Capital ratio | 13.36% | 16.01% (stronger) |
| Problem loans | 0.40% | 0.24% (stronger) |
| Net charge-offs | 0.00% | 0.00% (stronger) |
| Return on assets | 2.08% (stronger) | 1.75% |
| Loans ÷ deposits | 102.2% | 48.2% (stronger) |
| Uninsured deposits | 23.8% (stronger) | 29.8% |
| Offices | 19 | 5 |
| CFPB complaints (3 yrs) | — | — |
| Complaints per $1B deposits | — | — |
| Mortgage denial rate (HMDA) | 6.6% | 0.0% |
Chelsea Savings Bank has the higher TellerScore (93 vs 84). On the 7 directional measures above (where higher or lower is clearly better), Hills Bank and Trust Company leads on 2 and Chelsea Savings Bank on 5. 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.