TellerScore

Side-by-side · Q2 2026 data

Toro Employees Federal Credit Union vs Latvian Credit Union

Credit union

Toro Employees Federal Credit Union

Bloomington, Minnesota · Under $100 million in assets

84of 100
Strong

Credit union

Latvian Credit Union

Minneapolis, Minnesota · Under $100 million in assets

62of 100
Moderate

Metric by metric

MeasureToro Employees Federal Credit UnionLatvian Credit Union
TellerScore84 (stronger)62
Capital cushion95 (stronger)60
Loan quality81 (stronger)72
Earnings73 (stronger)35
Funding & liquidity72 (stronger)71
Problem-loan coverage94 (stronger)88
Peer percentile75th24th
Total assets$41.5M$5.8M
Deposits / shares$34.9M$5.2M
Capital ratio14.46% (stronger)11.01%
Problem loans0.56% (stronger)0.85%
Net charge-offs0.30% (stronger)0.38%
Return on assets1.34% (stronger)0.37%
Loans ÷ deposits88.0% (stronger)89.1%
Uninsured deposits4.1% (stronger)6.4%
Offices11
CFPB complaints (3 yrs)——
Complaints per $1B deposits——
Mortgage denial rate (HMDA)——

Toro Employees Federal Credit Union has the higher TellerScore (84 vs 62). On the 7 directional measures above (where higher or lower is clearly better), Toro Employees Federal Credit Union leads on 7 and Latvian Credit Union on 0. 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.

Compare two institutions