What’s actually slowing this PC down?
Pick the symptom - the matching free tool is one click away.
Short answer: ICICI Bank had the stronger FY2025 operating momentum, with faster profit and domestic-loan growth and a higher net interest margin. HDFC Bank reported the higher total capital-adequacy ratio and the lower gross NPA ratio. ICICI Bank, however, reported a lower net NPA ratio and higher provision coverage, so the asset-quality verdict depends on whether you are measuring the size of problem loans before provisions or the residual risk after provisions. Neither bank can be declared the universal winner without deciding which metric matters most to you.
FY2025 scorecard: what the disclosures actually show
The comparison below uses figures for the financial year ended March 31, 2025. HDFC Bank’s numbers are from its FY2024-25 annual report, while ICICI Bank’s are from its official FY2025 audited performance review and annual-report disclosures. Figures are presented on a standalone basis where the disclosed comparison is available; do not mix consolidated and standalone statements when updating this analysis.
As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.
| Metric (FY2025) | HDFC Bank | ICICI Bank | Reading |
|---|---|---|---|
| Profit-after-tax growth | 10.7% | 15.5% year on year, to ₹47,227 crore | ICICI grew earnings faster; absolute profit is not a like-for-like efficiency test because bank scale differs. |
| Net interest margin | 3.48% | 4.32% | ICICI generated more net interest income per unit of interest-earning assets in the disclosed period. |
| Return on equity | 14.6% | Not stated in the cited FY2025 material | No defensible ROE ranking can be made from these disclosures alone. |
| Deposit growth | 14.1%; FY2025 deposits ₹27,14,715 crore | 14.0%; period-end deposits ₹16,10,348 crore | Growth rates were nearly identical; HDFC was larger in reported deposits. |
| Loan or advance growth | Advances grew 5.4% | Domestic loan portfolio grew 13.9% | ICICI expanded credit much faster, but the definitions are not identical and should be checked in the full reports. |
| Balance-sheet growth | 8.1%; FY2025 balance sheet ₹39,10,199 crore | Not stated in the cited material | Only HDFC’s figure is available here. |
| Gross NPA ratio | 1.33% | 1.67% | HDFC had the lower stock of gross non-performing assets relative to advances. |
| Net NPA ratio | Not stated | 0.39% | ICICI’s residual bad-loan ratio after provisions cannot be directly compared with HDFC’s gross ratio. |
| Provision coverage ratio | 67.86% | 76.2% on non-performing loans | ICICI disclosed higher coverage, subject to each bank’s definition and scope. |
| Total capital-adequacy ratio | 19.6% | 16.55% | HDFC had the larger total regulatory capital cushion at the reported date. |
| CET-1 ratio | Not stated in the cited HDFC figures | 15.94% | A common-equity comparison is incomplete without HDFC’s corresponding CET-1 figure. |
This is a multi-dimensional result rather than a single ranking. ICICI leads on the growth and margin measures supplied; HDFC leads on gross NPA and total capital adequacy; ICICI’s net NPA and coverage figures point to stronger provisioning protection after recognizing provisions. The evidence does not establish a comparable return-on-assets or return-on-equity ranking for both banks.
Recommended Free Tools
How to read bank comparisons without drawing the wrong conclusion
Use the same period and accounting basis
Bank ratios move with interest rates, credit costs, recoveries and seasonal balance-sheet changes. Compare the same fiscal year, the same reporting date and the same accounting basis. FY2025 here means the year ended March 31, 2025. A later quarterly figure should not be silently substituted for an annual figure, and a consolidated ratio should not be compared with a standalone ratio.
#1 Best Overall
Separate scale from efficiency
HDFC reported FY2025 deposits of ₹27,14,715 crore and a balance sheet of ₹39,10,199 crore, both larger than the ICICI deposit figure supplied here. A larger bank may report a larger rupee profit simply because it has more assets. Growth rates, margins, credit costs and returns are more informative for efficiency than absolute profit alone. ICICI’s ₹47,227 crore profit-after-tax figure is useful as an amount and as a growth reference, but it does not by itself prove that ICICI is more efficient than HDFC.
Do not compare gross NPA with net NPA
Gross NPA measures loans classified as non-performing before deducting provisions. Net NPA subtracts eligible provisions and shows the remaining exposure. A bank can have a higher gross NPA but a lower net NPA if it has provided more aggressively. That is exactly why HDFC’s 1.33% gross NPA and ICICI’s 0.39% net NPA are not opposing data points that can be placed in a single league table. They answer different questions.
Profitability: ICICI had the stronger FY2025 momentum
Profit-after-tax growth
ICICI Bank’s profit after tax rose 15.5% year on year to ₹47,227 crore in FY2025. HDFC Bank’s profit after tax grew 10.7%. On growth alone, ICICI was ahead by 4.8 percentage points. The difference is meaningful because it shows a faster increase in earnings during the same fiscal year, but it does not reveal how much came from balance-sheet expansion, margins, provisions, treasury income or other items. Those drivers require the full income statements.
“Profit after tax grew by 15.5% year-on-year to ₹47,227 crore (US$ 5.5 billion) in FY2025.”
ICICI Bank, Performance Review for the quarter ended March 31, 2025
HDFC’s annual report describes its capital position in similarly direct terms: “The Bank remains well-capitalised, reflected in a Capital Adequacy Ratio of 19.6 per cent.” HDFC Bank, FY2024-25 Annual Report, Financial Performance section.
Net interest margin
Net interest margin (NIM) measures the spread between interest earned and interest paid relative to interest-earning assets. ICICI’s FY2025 NIM was 4.32%, compared with HDFC’s 3.48%, a 0.84-percentage-point advantage for ICICI. A higher NIM can support profitability, but it may also reflect differences in loan mix, funding costs, liquidity, interest-rate repricing and calculation conventions. Treat the gap as an operating signal, not as a guarantee of future returns.
Do these 3 things before closing this tab:
1Scan for outdated or missing drivers - takes under a minute2Repair Windows errors before they cause bigger problems3Fix the driver behind crashes, sound loss and screen glitchesReturn on equity
HDFC reported a 14.6% return on equity for FY2025. The cited ICICI disclosures do not provide a directly comparable FY2025 ROE figure, so this article does not rank the banks on ROE. ROE is also sensitive to the equity base, capital raising, retained earnings and one-time items. A valid comparison would require both banks’ definitions, average equity calculations and treatment of exceptional items.
Operating profit and earnings quality
ICICI disclosed FY2025 net interest income of ₹81,165 crore and core operating profit of ₹65,396 crore. The supplied HDFC figures do not include a matching net-interest-income or core-operating-profit amount. ICICI therefore has more disclosed detail on those lines in this comparison, but the absence of an HDFC value is not evidence that HDFC performed worse. It means only that a like-for-like operating-profit comparison cannot be completed from the stated figures.
Growth: similar deposits, sharply different loan expansion
Deposits and funding
HDFC’s deposits grew 14.1% in FY2025, reaching ₹27,14,715 crore. ICICI’s total period-end deposits grew 14.0% to ₹16,10,348 crore. The growth rates were effectively similar, while HDFC’s reported deposit base was larger. Deposit growth matters because stable, granular funding can support loan growth without excessive reliance on wholesale markets. The supplied figures do not include each bank’s current-account and savings-account mix, deposit cost or liquidity ratios, so they cannot establish which franchise had cheaper or more stable funding.
Rank #3
- Keep track of everything from attendance to test scores
- Spiral bound
- Measures 8-1/2" x 11"
Loans and advances
HDFC’s advances grew 5.4%. ICICI’s domestic loan portfolio grew 13.9%. ICICI’s disclosed credit growth was therefore 8.5 percentage points faster. Faster lending can increase future interest income, but it also raises the importance of underwriting standards, collection capacity and capital consumption. The categories are not worded identically: HDFC reports advances, while ICICI reports domestic loans. Before using the difference in a valuation model, confirm the detailed definitions and whether overseas books, credit substitutes or transferred loans are included.
Free tools Windows power users keep installed
One-click scans. No signup required.
Balance-sheet pace and funding alignment
HDFC’s balance sheet grew 8.1%, below its 14.1% deposit growth and above its 5.4% advance growth. That pattern indicates deposit accumulation outpaced loan deployment in FY2025. It can strengthen liquidity, although excess low-yield liquidity may weigh on margins if it persists. ICICI’s supplied material gives deposit and domestic-loan growth but not total balance-sheet growth, so the same funding-to-asset analysis cannot be calculated for ICICI from these figures alone.
A practical growth test is to ask three questions:
- Are deposits growing at least as quickly as loans, or is credit expansion relying on more expensive funding?
- Is loan growth broad-based across retail, business and corporate segments, or concentrated in a riskier niche?
- Do capital and provisions expand sufficiently to support the new assets?
ICICI passes the first numerical comparison in the supplied data because deposits grew 14.0% while domestic loans grew 13.9%. HDFC’s deposits grew much faster than advances, giving it more funding headroom but also indicating slower credit deployment.
Capital strength: HDFC has the larger total cushion
Total capital adequacy
HDFC reported a total capital-adequacy ratio of 19.6%, versus ICICI’s 16.55%. The 3.05-percentage-point difference gives HDFC the stronger total regulatory capital cushion on the reported date. Capital adequacy compares eligible capital with risk-weighted assets; it is not the same as cash on hand and cannot be interpreted without considering asset risk weights and regulatory buffers.
CET-1 and capital quality
ICICI reported a common-equity tier 1 (CET-1) ratio of 15.94%. CET-1 is the highest-quality form of regulatory capital because it consists mainly of common equity and retained earnings. The cited HDFC figures do not state a matching CET-1 ratio, so the comparison of capital quality is incomplete. HDFC’s higher total ratio may include a different mix of capital instruments; it should not automatically be treated as a higher CET-1 ratio.
Why the cushion matters
More capital can absorb unexpected losses, support future loan growth and reduce the need for dilutive fundraising. It can also depress ROE if capital is held well above immediate asset-growth needs. ICICI’s lower total ratio does not mean it is undercapitalized; 16.55% is the reported FY2025 figure, and adequacy must be judged against the applicable minimum, conservation buffers, systemic requirements and the bank’s risk profile. When updating the comparison, check whether each ratio includes the same treatment of proposed dividends and other deductions at the same reporting date.
Independent reader supportYour contribution helps us test, update, and keep practical guides available for everyone.Bad loans and provisioning: two different strengths
Gross NPA: HDFC reports the cleaner pre-provision book
HDFC’s gross NPA ratio was 1.33%, compared with ICICI’s 1.67%. Gross NPA is the share of gross advances that has stopped meeting repayment criteria under regulatory classification, before provisions are deducted. On that measure, HDFC had 0.34 percentage points less reported problem loans relative to advances.
Net NPA: ICICI reports lower residual exposure
ICICI’s net NPA ratio was 0.39%. HDFC’s FY2025 net NPA ratio is not stated in the figures used here. ICICI’s 0.39% should therefore not be called “lower than HDFC’s” unless HDFC’s corresponding net figure is obtained from the same report and date. Net NPA is useful for estimating the portion of bad loans left after provisions, but it depends on provisioning policy and eligible collateral adjustments.
Provision coverage ratio
HDFC reported a provision coverage ratio of 67.86%. ICICI reported 76.2% coverage on non-performing loans. Subject to the banks’ definitions and scope, ICICI had set aside a larger proportion of its NPL exposure in provisions. Higher coverage can limit the earnings hit from future write-offs, although it may also reflect a different loan mix, recoveries, write-offs or aging profile. Coverage is not a substitute for examining slippages, recoveries and restructuring.
What is missing from this snapshot
The supplied FY2025 figures do not provide a matched table for fresh slippages, recoveries, write-offs, restructured loans, sector-level stress or special-mention accounts for both banks. Those details can change the interpretation of a year-end NPA ratio. A falling gross NPA can result from genuine recoveries, loan write-offs or denominator growth; a stable ratio can conceal new stress if older accounts are resolved at the same time. For a lending-risk decision, obtain both annual reports’ asset-quality schedules rather than relying on one ratio.
Which bank is better for which objective?
If you prioritize earnings momentum
ICICI is the stronger FY2025 candidate because PAT growth was 15.5% versus HDFC’s 10.7%, domestic-loan growth was 13.9% versus 5.4% advances growth, and NIM was 4.32% versus 3.48%. This conclusion is limited to the disclosed year; it is not a forecast. Faster growth can reverse if funding costs rise, credit costs increase or underwriting weakens.
If you prioritize a lower pre-provision bad-loan ratio
HDFC leads on the directly comparable gross NPA figures, at 1.33% versus ICICI’s 1.67%. Choose this lens when you want to measure the size of classified problem loans before provisions, while recognizing that gross NPA does not show how much loss has already been absorbed.
If you prioritize provision protection
ICICI’s 0.39% net NPA and 76.2% provision coverage indicate lower residual exposure and stronger disclosed coverage after provisions. Because HDFC’s net NPA is not provided here and the definitions must be confirmed, this is evidence of ICICI’s reported provisioning position rather than a complete asset-quality victory.
Outdated Drivers Are Slowing You Down
One free scan finds every outdated or missing driver and matches the right update for your exact hardware.Free scan · exact hardware matchWindows Errors? Fix Them Before They Spread
Repair common Windows errors and clear accumulated junk for a smoother, more stable PC - no reinstall needed.Free scan · no reinstallIf you prioritize capital headroom
HDFC leads on total capital adequacy at 19.6% versus ICICI’s 16.55%. Investors focused on shock absorption or the ability to grow without near-term equity issuance may value that difference. A final judgment should include CET-1, leverage, risk-weight density and dividend treatment for both banks.
A repeatable checklist for updating the comparison
- Fix the date: select the same quarter or fiscal year for both banks and record the reporting date.
- Fix the basis: use standalone figures for both, or consolidated figures for both; do not mix them.
- Capture profitability: record PAT growth, NIM, ROE, return on assets, net interest income, operating profit and credit cost, with each bank’s definition.
- Capture growth: record deposits, total advances or loans, balance-sheet size and the relationship between deposit and credit growth.
- Capture capital: record total capital adequacy, CET-1, tier 1, leverage and whether proposed dividends or other deductions are included.
- Capture asset quality: record gross NPA, net NPA, provision coverage, fresh slippages, recoveries, write-offs and restructured exposure.
- Check definitions: confirm whether “domestic loans,” “advances,” “NPLs” and coverage ratios use equivalent scopes.
- Interpret together: a high margin with rapid loan growth may improve earnings but can increase future risk; a high capital ratio can protect depositors but reduce near-term ROE.
Bottom line for FY2025
There is no single FY2025 winner across every measure. ICICI Bank delivered the more compelling growth and profitability profile in the supplied disclosures: 15.5% PAT growth, 13.9% domestic-loan growth and a 4.32% NIM. HDFC Bank offered the stronger reported capital cushion and cleaner gross NPA ratio: 19.6% total capital adequacy and 1.33% gross NPA. ICICI’s 0.39% net NPA and 76.2% provision coverage show why gross NPA alone is insufficient: after provisions, its disclosed residual exposure was low and coverage was higher. A careful investor should therefore choose the bank according to the metric that matches the decision—momentum, pre-provision asset quality, post-provision protection or capital headroom—and refresh the ratios when a newer audited period is available.
Quick Recap
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
