Side-by-side · Q2 2026 data
Piscataqua Savings Bank vs Bank of New Hampshire
Metric by metric
| Measure | Piscataqua Savings Bank | Bank of New Hampshire |
|---|---|---|
| TellerScore | 81 (stronger) | 72 |
| Capital cushion | 87 (stronger) | 71 |
| Loan quality | 100 (stronger) | 79 |
| Earnings | 35 | 60 (stronger) |
| Funding & liquidity | 89 (stronger) | 64 |
| Problem-loan coverage | 100 (stronger) | 92 |
| Peer percentile | 80th | 66th |
| Total assets | $373.4M | $2.8B |
| Deposits / shares | $298.1M | $2.4B |
| Capital ratio | 13.67% (stronger) | 12.08% |
| Problem loans | 0.00% (stronger) | 0.63% |
| Net charge-offs | 0.00% (stronger) | 0.00% |
| Return on assets | 0.38% | 0.99% (stronger) |
| Loans ÷ deposits | 66.0% (stronger) | 91.8% |
| Uninsured deposits | 19.8% | 19.0% (stronger) |
| Offices | 1 | 21 |
| CFPB complaints (3 yrs) | — | — |
| Complaints per $1B deposits | — | — |
| Mortgage denial rate (HMDA) | 19.2% | 0.0% |
Piscataqua Savings Bank has the higher TellerScore (81 vs 72). On the 7 directional measures above (where higher or lower is clearly better), Piscataqua Savings Bank leads on 5 and Bank of New Hampshire 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.