Next Article in Journal
Reducing Risk by Understanding the Interplay of Critical Audit Matters and Culture
Previous Article in Journal
Enhancing Auditor Judgment Quality: A Review of Evidence from Experimental Research
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Using Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process and Technique for Order of Preference by Similarity to the Ideal Solution in Performance Evaluation in the Albanian Banking Sector

1
Department of Mathematics and Informatics, Faculty of Economics and Agribusiness, Agricultural University of Tirana, 1025 Tirana, Albania
2
Department of Finance and Accounting, Faculty of Economy, “Ismail Qemali” University of Vlora, 9400 Vlorë, Albania
3
Department of Public Safety, Government of Brčko District of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 76100 Brčko, Bosnia and Herzegovina
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
J. Risk Financial Manag. 2025, 18(3), 116; https://doi.org/10.3390/jrfm18030116
Submission received: 25 December 2024 / Revised: 11 February 2025 / Accepted: 18 February 2025 / Published: 24 February 2025
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Banking Profitability and Efficiency in Emerging Economies)

Abstract

:
The banking sector plays a key role in the economic, social, and political development of a country. The study of the financial performance of banks is essential for investors, creditors, and other interested parties. The aim of this research was to rank the second-tier banks in Albania by financial performance using a fuzzy multi-criteria decision model (fuzzy MCDM). For the ranking of banks, eight financial criteria were taken into account during the years 2020, 2021, and 2022 for 11 banks in the Albanian banking sector. Based on the selected indicators, a decision-making model was created. The Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process (FAHP) and the Technique for Order of Preference by Similarity to the Ideal Solution (TOPSIS) methods were used in this research. The results of the FAHP method showed that the most important indicators are Equity and EBT. The results of the TOPSIS method showed that Banka Kombëtare Tregtare (BKT) had the best indicators for the observed years. The contribution of this research is in understanding the financial operations of banks in Albania.

1. Introduction

The banking sector is one of the key financial institutions that actively contribute to a country’s economy, particularly in developing nations (Trung et al., 2024). These institutions facilitate financial activities by accepting monetary deposits or other repayable funds from the public and utilizing them to grant loans or engage in other financial operations (Zeneli & Bara, 2015). The banking sector also serves as a major driving force behind economic growth. It plays a fundamental role in promoting a country’s sustainable development (Baydaş & Elma, 2021). As a financial intermediary, it influences both the pace and direction of economic progress, shaping outcomes through customer interactions and its business model (Nosratabadi et al., 2020). Banking, as a vital component of the economy, is a powerful catalyst for achieving sustainable development (K. Kumar & Prakash, 2019; Mistrean, 2023). The most pressing sustainability concerns for these financial institutions (Saraçlı et al., 2023) are closely tied to financial inclusion and the education of both employees and customers (K. Kumar & Prakash, 2019).
Assessing the performance of banks annually and comparing them over specific time intervals provide an overview of their overall financial condition and their position with creditors, investors, and stakeholders (Koziuk et al., 2024; Jakšić et al., 2016). The banking sector is a complex system comprising numerous actors that interact in intricate ways on a continuous basis, playing a crucial role in the economic development of any country (Todorova et al., 2024; Yu et al., 2024). Developing economies, such as Albania, are characterized by a high demand for credit due to increased investment, particularly in real estate (Kola et al., 2019). Since the post-communist period, the number of banks has grown significantly, reflecting progress in the development of the Albanian banking system (Zeneli & Bara, 2015). Currently, 11 banks operate in Albania, funded by both foreign and domestic capital: American Investment Bank, Credins Bank, United Bank of Albania, First Investment Bank of Albania, Intesa Sanpaolo Bank Albania, National Commercial Bank, OTP Bank Albania, ProCredit Bank, Raiffeisen Bank, Tirana Bank, and Union Bank.
In the banking sector, where the primary focus is on financial services, measuring financial performance is essential (Asutay & Ubaidillah, 2024). Evaluating bank performance helps stakeholders make informed investment decisions, obtain credit, and access critical information about banks (Jakšić et al., 2016). The growing uncertainty and competition within the banking system have further increased the need for clear and reliable information (Akkoc & Vatansever, 2013). For this reason, the use of fuzzy techniques in bank performance measurement has become necessary, as these methods provide more precise and dependable insights (Muniz et al., 2024; Farahbakhsh et al., 2024; Zanaj et al., 2023). A review of the available literature highlights a gap in studies applying MCDM methods within a fuzzy environment to assess the performance and stability of banks in Albania.
The purpose of this study is twofold. First, it aims to provide decision support for policymakers analyzing the performance and effectiveness of banks through the application of MCDM methods. Second, the research seeks to highlight the sustainability of banks’ financial performance as a reflection of trust from stakeholders. In this study, a fuzzy financial performance assessment model is proposed, based on eight financial indicators for second-tier banks in Albania during the COVID-19 period. The research addresses this gap by integrating a hybrid methodology that combines the FAHP method, which uses linguistic variables to weight financial criteria, and the TOPSIS method, which ranks banks based on these weights. The model evaluates eight financial criteria—Equity, Portfolio, Sources, Liquid Assets, Cash, Net Interest Income (NII+), Core Business Net Income (CBNI+), and Earnings Before Tax (EBT) (Mastilo et al., 2024; Mandic et al., 2014; Akkoc & Vatansever, 2013; Amile et al., 2012; Ozbek, 2015; Rezaei & Ketabi, 2016)—for 11 second-tier banks during the years 2020, 2021, and 2022. The data for the analysis were obtained from the official reports of the banks published online.
These financial indicators form the foundation of the research model used to assess the performance of banks. Therefore, the research aims to provide decision-making support to those studying the performance and effectiveness of banks by applying MCDM methods and to highlight the sustainability of banks’ financial performance as a reflection of trust from stakeholders. The significance of this research lies in introducing a systematic approach to evaluating bank performance, addressing both financial and methodological gaps. Furthermore, the research provides a blueprint for improving operational efficiency and fostering confidence in the financial system. It also contributes to the broader discourse on banking sector development in developing economies.
The research has several key objectives. First, it aims to assess the financial condition of banks by combining fuzzy methods with a robust, contemporary research methodology suitable for such applications. Second, the research seeks to provide valuable insights to guide the further development of banks in Albania, supporting the sector that provides financial services in the country. Third, it aims to offer appropriate guidance to customers and other stakeholders interested in the financial services provided by banks, based on the financial criteria considered in the study. Fourth, the ranking of banks according to the methods used aims to guide second-tier banks in improving their services, helping them become the preferred choice for customers or interested parties seeking deposits or loans. Finally, the research aims to assist decision-makers and the central bank in refining policies and decisions within the banking sector to further enhance the services provided, ensuring the sector’s sustainability. Ultimately, the research strives to contribute to a sustainable financial system, a cornerstone of economic sustainability. In addition to its importance and objectives, the research addresses several research gaps:
  • The research applies a relatively new methodology that, unlike traditional methods for assessing and ranking bank performance, offers an innovative and contemporary approach.
  • The integration of the fuzzy approach with financial data provides a comprehensive and innovative framework for assessing the performance of the Albanian banking system.
  • Previous research has focused on the performance of individual banks using traditional financial indicators. Moreover, the lack of fuzzy logic integration and the absence of comprehensive frameworks in performance studies represent a gap in this body of research.
From this perspective, the results of this research make a significant contribution to the literature on the assessment of bank performance in developing economies. Additionally, the methodology used in this study provides a robust and nuanced evaluation by integrating the subjective judgments of experts with quantitative data, offering a reliable framework for assessing bank performance.
The literature review follows this section, with Section 3 discussing the methodology employed. Subsections of Section 3 detail the research design, implementation, and methods. Specifically, the FAHP and TOPSIS methods used in the research are outlined in Section 3.3.1 and Section 3.3.2, respectively. The case study results and discussions on the financial performance of second-tier banks in Albania are presented after Section 3. The paper concludes with the final section, which provides conclusions and potential recommendations.

2. Literature Review

This section presents recent studies that apply MCDM methods to evaluate the financial performance of the banking sector. MCDM methods have been widely used in financial studies of banks, focusing on specific contexts and purposes. One of the MCDM methods frequently employed in performance evaluation is the AHP method. The AHP method, being suitable for determining the weights of criteria, has been integrated by many researchers with other MCDM techniques.
Marjanović and Popović (2020) applied the CRITIC (CRiteria Importance Through Intercriteria Correlation) and TOPSIS methods to assess the financial performance of banks in Serbia from 2012 to 2017. They demonstrated the effectiveness of these methods in ranking banks based on a comprehensive set of financial criteria. Gupta et al. (2021a) used the hybrid CRITIC–TOPSIS method to evaluate the financial performance of banks in India for the years 2013–2014 and 2017–2018, with a focus on sustainability within the banking sector. Their study emphasized the sustainability of the public banking system. Various researchers have applied different MCDM methods to assess bank financial performance. Alsanousi et al. (2024) used a hybrid of the BWM (Best–Worst Method) and TOPSIS method to analyze stock performance on the Saudi Arabian Stock Exchange. They focused on key financial parameters such as ROE, ROA, net profit margin, and asset turnover, finding profitability ratios as the most important variables. P. Kumar and Sharma (2023) also applied FAHP and TOPSIS to study the performance of ten Indian banks from 2016 to 2021. Among the criteria they considered, they found that ROE was the most influential.
Many studies have examined the use of fuzzy MCDM methods to address uncertainty in decision-making. Igbudu et al. (2018) investigated the role of sustainable banking practices in customer loyalty. By designing 511 questionnaires, they observed that sustainable banking practices and corporate image had a positive and direct effect on bank loyalty and corporate image. Quynh (2024) applied an extended fuzzy TOPSIS method using integral values to evaluate bank performance. Palmieri and Ferilli (2024) integrated Spherical Fuzzy TOPSIS, Entropy, and ARAS (Additive Ratio Assessment) methods to analyze the increasing importance of alternative financing instruments in the bank–firm relationship. Ballouk et al. (2024) employed qualitative comparative fuzzy set analysis to study the effects of social media on bank performance. Reyes and Young (2024) analyzed the financial performance of 16 banking corporations listed on the Philippine Stock Exchange, comparing their performance before and during the quarantine period. They applied FANP to rank the bank portfolios.
Antunes et al. (2024) applied DEA and TOPSIS methods to evaluate the performance of Japanese banks, proposing a stochastic Entropy analysis based on ideal solutions. Eftekhari Aliabadi and Momen (2024) used fuzzy Delphi, pairwise comparison matrix, and fuzzy TOPSIS methods to assess the performance of private sector banks in Iran based on financial capability indicators. Their study was based on three questionnaires administered at three different stages among 36 people. Ecer et al. (2024) applied the SWARA and WASPAS (Weighted Aggregated Sum Product Assessment) methods to study the key factors in the digital transformation of banks. They analyzed 12 Turkish banks and found that the main factors influencing digital transformation were fast responses to customer needs, the power of social media, and entry into new markets. Antunes et al. (2024) introduced a new model called Trigonometric Envelopment Analysis for Ideal Solutions (TEA-IS). Yazdi et al. (2024) combined the CAMELS, CoCoSo (Combined Compromise Solution), and SWARA methods to rank Iranian banks, emphasizing the importance of integrating both qualitative and quantitative factors for a comprehensive assessment.
Fazeli et al. (2023) applied the fuzzy AHP method to identify and rank indicators that affect the financial performance of private banks. Sharma and Kumar (2023) used FAHP and FTOPSIS methods to evaluate the performance of ten public sector banks in India, using 17 performance indicators. Gupta et al. (2023) applied the FAHP method to explore and prioritize the main factors driving the adoption of Payments Bank in the northern region of India. Arsu and Aytaç (2023) employed FAHP and TOPSIS to assess the performance of 19 Turkish banks in terms of customer complaint management. They found that private banks outperformed public and participating banks in complaint management. Avşarlıgil et al. (2023) applied Entropy, ARAS, MOORA (Multi-objective Optimization with Ratio Analysis), and MOOSRA (Multi-objective Optimization on the Basis of Simple Ratio Analysis) methods to study the financial performance of companies. Reig-Mullor and Brotons-Martinez (2021) applied FAHP and TOPSIS methods to evaluate the performance of Spanish commercial banks using intuitionistic fuzzy numbers. Ünvan and Ergenç (2022) used fuzzy COPRAS and Entropy-COPRAS methods to assess the financial performance and profitability of the Turkish banking sector, studying the period 2014–2018.
Pineda et al. (2018) used an MCDM model to extract critical factors for improving airline performance, applying the VIKOR (VIsekriterijumsko KOmpromisno Rangiranje) and DANP methods. Baydaş and Elma (2021) conducted a study on 131 manufacturing companies over 20 quarters between 2014 and 2018. Aldalou and Perçin (2020) applied the FEDAS method to evaluate the financial performance of companies listed on the Istanbul Stock Exchange Food and Beverage Index. They tested the reliability of the method using sensitivity analysis with the CRITIC method and validated it with the FTOPSIS, FVIKOR, FCOPRAS, FMOORA, and FSAW methods. Alimohammadlou and Bonyani (2017) proposed an integrated model composed of the Best–Worst Method and PROMETHEE II to evaluate and rank the 14 largest food companies in Iran, with NOOSH MAZAN Co. from Tehran, Iran ranking first.
Baydaş and Pamučar (2022) applied several MCDM methods to evaluate the financial performance of companies and compared these methods. Makki and Alqahtani (2023) studied the financial performance of companies in the energy sector post-COVID-19 (2019–2021), focusing on four financial dimensions and 11 performance indicators. They found that the efficiency and profitability of energy companies were the most important dimensions, followed by leverage and liquidity. Gavalas et al. (2021) applied the DEMATEL fuzzy, FANP, and MOORA methods to analyze public policies related to shipbuilding in different countries, considering 25 variables, including finance, customers, internal processes, and learning and growth aspects. Baydaş et al. (2023) proposed two criteria confirming each other in the evaluation of financial performance for 140 manufacturing companies, using nine MCDM methods.
This subsection presents some of the applications of FAHP and TOPSIS methods in different sectors of the economy as well as in the banking sector. The FAHP method has been used to address uncertainties within expert judgments for weighing criteria, and this has created the need to integrate with the TOPSIS method, which is applied in ranking numerical data. In many areas of research, different MCDM methods have been used without applying the hybrid framework approach. Furthermore, in sectors of the economy in general and in the Albanian banking sector, there is a lack of such applications that integrate this methodology, as they use classical approaches or specific MCDM approaches in isolation without the use of fuzzy methods. The research addresses this gap and provides a sound assessment as well as important knowledge for all actors involved in the banking system, increasing the understanding of bank performance assessment in developing countries.
In a study on measuring the performance of banks in India, Guru and Mahalik (2021) applied AHP and TOPSIS as the most suitable methods for this purpose. In the same way, Gupta et al. (2021a) also acted, who ranked Indian banks according to performance by applying the integration of the AHP and TOPSIS methods. They also applied the IV-TOPSIS method to obtain a better assessment of the overall ranking of banks. Agrawal et al. (2022) combined the AHP method with TOPSIS and DEMATEL methods to identify and rank the factors of e-service quality in the comparison of banks. Abdel-Basset et al. (2021) evaluated the performance of ten Egyptian banks by combining AHP with TOPSIS, VIKOR, and COPRAS methods. Muhammad Ghazali (2022) selected several banks in Malaysia to compare and rank them in the period before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. In this study, he selected six financial criteria and applied the AHP method with TOPSIS, VIKOR, and PROMETHEE II methods. Iç et al. (2021) integrated the AHP method with the VIKOR method to evaluate the performance of Turkish banks. İç et al. (2022) applied the AHP method by combining it with the DOE method in measuring the performance and ranking 18 Turkish banks.
Other researchers applied the TOPSIS method separately or combined it with other MCDM methods. One such example was Salur and Cıhan (2020), who applied the TOPSIS method to analyze the performance of 18 banks in Turkey during the period 2010–2018. They made a comparison between traditional banking and participatory banking. Özçalıcı et al. (2022) applied the ARAS, EDAS, MOORA, OCRA, and TOPSIS methods to evaluate the performance of banks in Turkey in the period 2014–2018. From the calculations they performed, they noted that the two most important criteria were the average return on assets and the ratio of shareholders’ Equity/total assets. Yeşildağ et al. (2020) applied the TOPSIS and GRA methods to the performance of 11 Turkish banks in a period from 2002 to 2018 using 15 financial criteria. Marjanović and Popović (2020) applied the TOPSIS and CRITIC methods to assess the performance of Serbian banks in the period from 2012 to 2017. Nguyen et al. (2022) integrated the TOPSIS method with the CRITIC and DEMATEL methods to the performance of 23 banks in Vietnam during 2019–2020. Gupta et al. (2021b) analyzed the performance of Indian banks during 2013–2014 and 2017–2018. They performed the analysis by combining the CRITIC and TOPSIS methods. Then, to obtain an overall performance of the banking sector, they applied the interval-valued TOPSIS (IV-TOPSIS) method. P. Kumar and Sharma (2024) applied CRITIC and interval-valued TOPSIS (IV-TOPSIS) methods to assess the performance of Indian banks for the years 2015–2021. Ghosh and Saima (2021) studied the performance of 13 banks using TOPSIS and HELLWIG methods. Amiri et al. (2023) applied TOPSIS to identify and rank the factors that influence the growth and development of market share of a single bank. Sharma and Kumar (2024) applied TOPSIS and VIKOR methods to the performance of Indian banks.
Meanwhile, since the criteria in many cases are qualitative and subjective in nature, fuzzy logic has been integrated into traditional MCDM methods. Subjective judgments of experts during comparison may be inaccurate and uncertain. For this, the treatment of inaccuracy and uncertainty in AHP is performed by replacing exact numbers with fuzzy variables that represent linguistic variables in FAHP (Liu et al., 2020). Following the traditional MCDM methods that have been used in the performance and ranking of banks by different researchers and in different countries, this section provides some of the applications of the FAHP and TOPSIS methods in the banking sector but also in different sectors of the economy. The FAHP method was used to address the uncertainties within the expert judgments for the weighting criteria, and this has created the need to integrate with the TOPSIS method, which is applied to the ranking of numerical data. In many areas of research, different MCDM methods have been used without applying the hybrid framework approach. Moreover, in the banking sector but also in other sectors of the Albanian economy, there is a lack of such applications that integrate this methodology as studies use classical approaches or specific MCDM approaches isolated without the use of fuzzy logic. The research addresses this gap and provides a sound assessment as well as important knowledge for all actors involved in the Albanian banking system. In the Table 1. below are some applications of the FAHP and TOPSIS methods.
Various researchers have employed other MCDM methods in fuzzy environments to analyze and rank bank performance. These studies help capture the uncertainty and imprecision inherent in financial data and expert judgments. The following researchers have applied such methodologies: Quynh (2024), Palmieri and Ferilli (2024), Ballouk et al. (2024), Reyes and Young (2024), Eftekhari Aliabadi and Momen (2024), Fazeli et al. (2023), Ünvan (2020), Ünvan and Ergenç (2022), Işık et al. (2025), Mastilo et al. (2024), and Osmanovic et al. (2022). They utilized various MCDM techniques like fuzzy TOPSIS and fuzzy AHP to provide a more nuanced and reliable evaluation of bank performance. These approaches offer more flexibility in handling the vagueness often found in financial performance assessments.

3. Research Methodology

Figure 1 illustrates the processes to be followed in conducting the research for this paper. When determining the ranking of banks based on financial results, a research model is initially developed. This model identifies the criteria, which in this case are financial indicators, as well as the banks that will be observed using these indicators, representing the alternatives. A combination of subjective and objective approaches is employed here.
For determining the weight of the criteria, a subjective approach is used, where the AHP method is applied. In this step, experts assess the importance of these indicators. An objective approach is used in constructing the decision matrix, where the financial indicator values for the banks are incorporated. The ranking of these banks will then be carried out using the TOPSIS method.
To apply this method, the criteria weights must first be determined, as these indicators are needed for one of the steps in the TOPSIS method. The research methodology, results, and methods will be presented in the following sections.

3.1. Research Model

  • To enrich the financial offerings, various additional services are provided, including financial services (Breidbach et al., 2020). However, in some cases, these services are not only complementary but essential to the banking experience. Understanding how these financial services are delivered is crucial, leading to the development of a research model. This model is designed with sustainability in mind, aiming to meet current demands while preserving the environment for future generations. Drawing from previous studies and financial experts, the eight most important financial criteria/parameters selected for this research to measure the financial performance of banks are the following: Equity, Portfolio, Sources, Liquid Assets, Cash, Net Interest Income (NII+), Core Business Net Income (CBNI+), and Earnings Before Tax (EBT) (Mastilo et al., 2024; Mandic et al., 2014; Akkoc & Vatansever, 2013; Amile et al., 2012; Ozbek, 2015; Rezaei & Ketabi, 2016). The selection of these criteria is organized in this way because in the financial services provided by banks the relationship with the client comes first. Brief descriptions of the eight criteria are as follows:
  • Equity: In evaluating bank performance, capital is considered a fundamental criterion. Often, capital in a business refers to the ownership interest of shareholders or the owner. Net capital also refers to the combination of liabilities and the owner’s capital (Mastilo et al., 2024; Mandic et al., 2014; Akkoc & Vatansever, 2013; Amile et al., 2012; Ozbek, 2015; Rezaei & Ketabi, 2016).
  • Portfolio: The Portfolio criterion includes deposits and loans, stocks, bonds, cash equivalents, interests and fees, securities, and other investments. In this case study, the Portfolio is considered one of the parameters and is significant because Net Interest Income is generated from its use (Mastilo et al., 2024; Mandic et al., 2014; Rezaei & Ketabi, 2016; Yang et al., 2024).
  • Sources: The Sources criterion includes average Sources such as transaction deposits, deposits, and other loans, liabilities under securities, interest liabilities, fees, and the valuation of derivatives. Proper management of these Sources of financing directly impacts the profitability of banks (Mandic et al., 2014; Rezaei & Ketabi, 2016; Batta et al., 2022).
  • Liquid Assets: Assets are considered liquid if they can be easily converted into cash without a loss in value. Liquid Assets typically include banknotes and current accounts. Given that banks often take risks in their business transactions, considering Liquid Assets is important when analyzing the efficiency of banks (Mastilo et al., 2024; Mandic et al., 2014; Akkoc & Vatansever, 2013; Rezaei & Ketabi, 2016).
  • Cash: Cash and its equivalents, also known as Cash in banks, are the most Liquid Assets a bank holds. Cash is also a reflection of the bank’s business activities and impacts the Cash flow statement (Mastilo et al., 2024; Mandic et al., 2014; Rezaei & Ketabi, 2016; Tan et al., 2024).
  • Net Interest Income (NII+): Net Interest Income is one of the most critical criteria for evaluating bank performance (Mandic et al., 2014; Akkoc & Vatansever, 2013; Amile et al., 2012; Ozbek, 2015; Rezaei & Ketabi, 2016).
  • Core Business Net Income (CBNI+): Core Business Net Income is an essential criterion, encompassing Net Interest Income and income from fees and commissions, excluding indirect write-offs (Mandic et al., 2014; Rezaei & Ketabi, 2016).
  • Earnings Before Tax (EBT): EBT is an important criterion for assessing bank performance and serves as a key indicator for measuring productivity (Mandic et al., 2014; Rezaei & Ketabi, 2016).

3.2. Research Conduction

For the financial analysis and ranking of second-tier banks in Albania, a fuzzy MCDM model was developed by integrating the FAHP and TOPSIS methods. The model was constructed based on the selected criteria, and the FAHP method was subsequently applied to determine the weights. In this process, the respective weights are derived using a linguistic scale, which allows financial experts to easily compare them. The linguistic scale used in this study is based on the works of Mandic et al. (2014) and Kilincci and Onal (2011). In the FAHP method, linguistic variables—whose values are represented as words rather than numbers—are employed, and these variables are considered fuzzy numbers. The linguistic variables used in this study follow a scale with five linguistic terms, as shown in Table 2. Financial experts, when comparing linguistic criteria, select the linguistic variable that best corresponds to a given criterion, with each variable represented as a triangular fuzzy number (TFN) (Zadeh, 1965).
After determining the criteria weights, the banks were ranked using the TOPSIS method. The “Results and Discussion” section presents both the steps followed in the applied methodology and the results obtained from these methods.

3.3. Research Methods

This section outlines the methodology applied in this research, providing fundamental concepts of the MCDM approach, specifically the FAHP–TOPSIS method.

3.3.1. Fuzzy AHP Method

In many real-life problems, we often face complex decision-making. MCDM approaches are widely used to select the best alternative based on several, usually conflicting, criteria (Božanić et al., 2022). The AHP method introduced by Saaty (1980) as one of the MCDM methods often has limitations in use. The uncertainty and ambiguity of the data led Chang (1996) to introduce the combination of AHP with fuzzy set theory (Zadeh, 1965).
First, by taking the opinion of experts, the pairwise comparison matrix A ~ i j consisting of fuzzy numbers is constructed (Hwang & Masud, 2012).
A ~ i j =   1 ,   i = j 1 ,   3 ,   5 ,   7 ,   9   o r   1 1 ,   3 1 ,   5 1 ,   7 1 ,   9 1   i j
In the next step, the values of the fuzzy synthetic extension are found:
S i = j = 1 m M g i j i = 1 n j = 1 m M g i j 1
j = 1 m M g i j = j = 1 m l i j = 1 m m i j = 1 m u i
i = 1 n j = 1 m M g i j = j = 1 n l i j = 1 n m i j = 1 n u i
i = 1 n j = 1 m M g i j 1 = 1 i = 1 n u i ,   1 i = 1 n m i ,   1 i = 1 n l i
After comparing the values of Si, the degree of possibility is calculated S 2 = ( l 2 ,   m 2 ,   u 2 ) he S 1 = ( l 1 ,   m 1 ,   u 1 )
V S 2   S 1 = y x min μ S 1 x ,   μ S 2 y
V S 2   S 1 = h g t S 1 S 2 = μ S 2 d =   1   ,   i f   m 2 m 1   0   ,   i f   l 1 u 2 l 1 u 2 m 2 u 2 ( m 1 l 1 )   ,   o t h e r w i s e
The intersection of μ S 1 and μ S 2 is ordinate d.
The minimum degree of possibility Si (i = 1, 2, …, k) is calculated
V   S     S 1 ,   S 2 ,   ,   S k = = V S   S 1   a n d   S   S 2   a n d   S   S k = min V S   S i ,   i = 1 ,   2 ,   ,   k
If
d ( A i ) = min V S i   S k
for k = 1 ,   2 ,     n ;   k     i , then as a result the weight vector is obtained:
W = d A 1 ,   d A 1 ,   ,   d A n T
where A i ( i = 1 , 2 , , n )
Finally, the normalized criterion weight vector is
W   = W 1 ,   W 2 ,   ,   W n T
and it is a non-fuzzy number (Büyüközkan et al., 2008; Kahraman et al., 2006).

3.3.2. TOPSIS Method

The TOPSIS method introduced by Hwang and Yoon (1981) is one of the methods that finds wide use in different real-life fields and does not require complicated calculations (Alaoui et al., 2019). The TOPSIS method is based on PIS and NIS, where PIS is used to maximize the benefit criterion and minimize the cost, while NIS does the opposite (Benítez et al., 2007).
The following are the steps of the TOPSIS method (El Alaoui, 2021):
  • The decision matrix R, which is normalized, is constructed in this initial step for alternative and criterion j:
    R i j = x i j i = 1 m x i j 2
  • The weighted matrix, which is normalized, is constructed in this second step of the method using the weights of the criterion w j :
    V i j = w j × R i j
  • As a third step, the ideal positive solution A+ and the negative one A are determined:
    A = v 1 ,   ,   v n = { v i j | j ρ b ) ,   v i j | j ρ c ) ,  
    A = v 1 ,   ,   v n = { v i j | j ρ b ) ,   v i j | j ρ c ) ,  
    where ρ b and ρ c are the set of benefit and cost criteria, respectively.
The next step is to calculate the distance D+ and D− from the solutions A+ and A−:
d i = j = 1 m v i j v j 2 ,   i = 1 ,   ,   m
d i = j = 1 m v i j v j 2 ,   i = 1 ,   ,   m
Calculating the proximity with A* and A−,
C C i = d i d i + d i ,   i = 1 ,   ,   m
where C C i − calculate closeness.
And the last step is to rank the alternatives depending on the values of C C i .

4. Results

To derive the results of this research, the first necessary step is to calculate the weights for the main criteria of the model. This calculation is performed using the fuzzy AHP method. The initial step in this method involves the fuzzy comparison matrix for the eight selected financial criteria, as shown in Table 3. The fuzzy comparison matrix is an upper triangular matrix, with the elements in the lower part representing inverse ratings. The “Equal” rating is placed along the main diagonal of Table 3, as each criterion cannot be compared with itself.
For comparing the eight basic criteria, the ratings of five financial experts were considered, including three university professors and two financial experts from the Central Bank of Albania. These experts were initially provided with a questionnaire to assess the importance of these criteria. After collecting the completed questionnaires, the responses were processed and returned to the experts for harmonization of the weights assigned to the criteria. In addition to the ratings, the experts explained their reasoning, and based on these explanations, they adjusted their evaluations and returned the questionnaires. This procedure was repeated three times until consensus was reached on the evaluation criteria. Furthermore, the ratings for the comparison of the eight criteria were also informed by the existing literature and scientific articles (Mandic et al., 2014; Rezaei & Ketabi, 2016; Fazeli et al., 2023; Sharma & Kumar, 2023; Gupta et al., 2023).
Then, the linguistic values are transformed into fuzzy numbers by applying the membership function to the fuzzy numbers, as shown in Table 1. This transformation is carried out by assigning the defined fuzzy numbers to the appropriate importance scale. For example, the value “equally” will be transformed into the fuzzy number (1, 1, 1), while the value “very strong” will be transformed into (2.5, 3, 3.5). The other value scales are transformed in the same manner.
It is important to note that in Table 2 only the values on the main diagonal of the matrix are shown. The values below the diagonal are not shown but represent the reciprocal values of the corresponding main diagonal values. For instance, if the “capital” criterion in relation to the “portfolio” is rated as “very strong”, then the ratio of the Portfolio to capital will be 1/“very strong”. This procedure is applied to all values below the main diagonal, ultimately forming a complete decision matrix for the criteria. Based on this matrix, the values for the FAHP method are further calculated, and the weights for each criterion are determined, as shown in Table 4.
By following all the steps of the FAHP method algorithm, we can conclude that in the process of evaluating the eight financial criteria in the Albanian banking sector, the “Equity” criterion was assigned the highest weight of 0.23. The “EBT” criterion was also assessed with the same weight. The “Sources” and “Cash” criteria were evaluated with a weight of 0.1482, followed by the “CBNI+” criterion with a weight of 0.0961. The “Portfolio” and “Liquid Assets” criteria were assessed with the same weight of 0.0846, and the final criterion, “NII+”, had the lowest weight at 0.0430. The weights calculated using the FAHP method, along with the financial data for the eight basic criteria for the year 2020, are presented in Table 5 as follows:
The next step in the financial analysis of banks, after determining their criteria weights, is the ranking of the banks using the TOPSIS method. We selected the TOPSIS method because it is an efficient tool for ranking banks based on financial data (B. Erdoğan, 2023; Hassanzadeh & Valmohammadi, 2021; Ünvan, 2020). The TOPSIS method is one of the most widely used multi-criteria decision-making methods (Anwar et al., 2025).
The TOPSIS method first normalizes the decision matrix (Table 5) using Formula (12). The second step is to multiply the weights, obtained through the FAHP method, with the normalized matrix, resulting in a normalized weighted matrix. Following this, the next step in the TOPSIS method is to calculate the PIS (Positive Ideal Solution) and NIS (Negative Ideal Solution). Subsequently, the shortest distance from the PIS and the furthest distance from the NIS are calculated, followed by the computation of the C C i proximity coefficient for each alternative (bank).
The final step involves ranking the banks from the highest to the lowest C C i value. The procedure, as outlined above, is shown in Table 6, which provides a complete overview of the PIS, NIS, C C i parameters, and the ranking of second-tier banks in Albania for the year 2020. The same procedure was applied for the years 2021 and 2022, and the results for all three years are presented in Table 7.
From the results obtained using the FAHP and TOPSIS methods, it is evident that BKT ranked first in all three years. This is because all the selected financial indicators favor this bank. Raiffeisen Bank consistently ranked second across all three years, while Credins Bank, initially ranked fourth in 2020, moved up to third place in the following two years. Conversely, Intesa Bank followed the opposite trend.
OTP Bank, ABI Bank, Tirana Bank, Union Bank, and FiBank maintained their rankings in fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth, and ninth place, respectively, throughout all three years. Finally, UBA Bank and ProCredit Bank consistently occupied the last positions.
In this study, it was deemed unnecessary to apply additional MCDM methods for ranking Albania’s second-tier banks based on financial performance, as BKT was clearly the top-ranked bank in all three years. Regarding the methodology used, we recommend its application in other financial sectors and across various industries to assess performance based on multiple criteria.

5. Discussions

The banking sector is a cornerstone of a country’s economic activity (Siagian, 2023). The stability and efficiency of banks are crucial, as financial issues in a single bank can disrupt the operations of businesses and individuals relying on it. Therefore, continuous monitoring of banking operations is essential (Yakymchuk et al., 2023).
This study aimed to rank second-tier banks in Albania based on financial performance, identifying those with the strongest indicators. Eight key financial indicators were selected, consistent with previous research (Mandic et al., 2014; Rezaei & Ketabi, 2016; Fazeli et al., 2023; Sharma & Kumar, 2023; Gupta et al., 2023). These indicators have been widely recognized as fundamental metrics for assessing bank performance.
While the FAHP and TOPSIS methods applied in this research are well-established in multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM), the study’s novelty lies in its contribution to enhancing banking operations in Albania. Expert opinions were used to determine the relative importance of each criterion. Experts emphasized that Earnings Before Tax (EBT) and Equity were the most critical indicators. However, to ensure objectivity, the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) was employed to calculate the weight of each criterion.
AHP, originally developed by Saaty (1980), has been extensively applied in decision-making studies. Like all MCDM methods, AHP has strengths and limitations (Komazec et al., 2024). A key advantage is its structured pairwise comparison approach, which quantifies how much more important one criterion is relative to another (Ahmed et al., 2024). However, maintaining consistency in expert judgments is a challenge. For example, if Criterion 1 is more important than Criterion 2, and Criterion 2 is more important than Criterion 3, then Criterion 1 should logically be more important than Criterion 3—and by an appropriate proportion (Bobar et al., 2020). This requirement for logical transitivity is a fundamental limitation of the AHP method (Genç et al., 2024).
As the number of criteria increase, the likelihood of inconsistencies in expert evaluations grows (Sangaré-Oumar et al., 2025). To mitigate this, the Consistency Index (CI) must be calculated, adding complexity to the method (Radovanović et al., 2025). Despite this challenge, AHP remains one of the most widely used tools in multi-criteria decision-making due to its systematic and rational approach to prioritization.
Since the AHP method has limitations regarding the consistency of criteria evaluation, alternative methods have been developed that do not require direct comparisons between criteria. For example, in the SWARA method, criteria are first ranked by importance, and then the extent to which a criterion is more significant than a lower-ranked criterion is determined (Mehdiabadi et al., 2025). In contrast, the FUCOM method ranks the criteria but assigns importance numerically, with the most important criterion receiving a score of one and others ranging up to nine. This method relies on numerical comparisons rather than pairwise evaluation. The BMW method, on the other hand, identifies the best and worst criteria and compares the remaining criteria against these two benchmarks (Bouraima et al., 2024). Due to these considerations, the AHP method must be applied with caution, ensuring consistency in the evaluation process.
The TOPSIS method was first introduced by Hwang and Yoon in 1981. This approach determines results by calculating the squared deviation from both the best and worst alternative values for a given criterion (Çalikoğlu & Łuczak, 2024). It is widely used because it facilitates a straightforward ranking of alternatives (Kousar et al., 2025). The method is applicable to all multi-criteria decision-making problems (Kizielewicz & Sałabun, 2024), which is why it was chosen for ranking banks. However, it also has some drawbacks, primarily due to its relatively complex methodology and procedural steps (Mishra & Rani, 2025). The method requires calculating cumulative squared deviations from ideal and anti-ideal alternatives, necessitating a compromise-based ranking determination (Đukić et al., 2022). Nonetheless, regardless of the method applied, BKT Bank would still emerge as the top-ranked institution.
Examining Table 1, which presents financial indicators for 2020, it is evident that BKT Bank consistently achieves the best values across all indicators. A similar study conducted by Mandic et al. (2014) found that no single bank had superior values for all indicators, though some banks demonstrated strong performance over time. Rezaei and Ketabi (2016) used the same set of criteria in their study of Iranian banks, ranking private banks and concluding that none excelled across all indicators. Sharma and Kumar (2023) also utilized the same indicators in their research. What distinguishes the present study from similar research is that, in Albania, one bank—BKT—outperformed all others across all selected financial indicators.
The financial performance of BKT Bank is so superior to that of other banks that additional analyses, such as sensitivity or comparative analysis, were deemed unnecessary. Conducting these analyses would still confirm BKT as the top-performing bank. Consequently, BKT’s operational model should serve as a benchmark for other banks seeking to enhance their performance. Across all financial indicators, BKT consistently ranks highest. Other banks should analyze BKT’s strategies to understand the key factors contributing to its success. A primary factor is that BKT holds the largest deposit reserves and enjoys the highest market coverage. To remain competitive, other banks must enhance their liquidity. The banks ranked lowest in this study are not necessarily at risk of bankruptcy (Heralová, 2024), but they must refine their operations to achieve optimal financial performance, with BKT serving as a model for improvement.

5.1. Research Limitations

This study provides valuable insights into the financial performance of second-tier banks in Albania. However, future research can address certain limitations to further refine this type of analysis. One limitation lies in the selection of financial indicators, as it is challenging to incorporate all possible financial metrics within a single study. Another limitation is the exclusion of non-financial indicators, such as employee count, customer satisfaction, loyalty, service efficiency, and service quality. Including these qualitative indicators would provide a more comprehensive assessment of bank performance. If such criteria were applied, experts would need to evaluate banks using linguistic variables rather than numerical metrics alone.
Another limitation relates to the number of experts involved in the evaluation process. However, regardless of how experts rated the criteria, BKT Bank would still have emerged as the top performer. This is because, based on the selected indicators, BKT consistently demonstrates the best results, securing its position as the highest-ranked bank regardless of the weight assigned to different criteria.
Additionally, this study utilized a combination of fuzzy and traditional decision-making methods. The fuzzy AHP method was used to determine criteria weights, while the conventional TOPSIS method was employed for ranking. This approach was chosen to simplify expert evaluations by allowing linguistic terms to be used in the weighting process. Once fuzzy weight values were obtained, they were converted into crisp values to enable the application of the standard TOPSIS method. The decision to use the traditional TOPSIS method was based on the fact that the selected financial indicators yielded crisp numerical values, making the fuzzy TOPSIS method unnecessary.

5.2. Directions for Future Research

Based on the limitations of the research, guidelines for future research have been set that will attempt to address the limitations of this research. First, in future research, banks should be observed using a broader range of criteria that would include other indicators that are not exclusively financial, and qualitative criteria should be included in the research. Including these criteria would encompass the broader operations of banks, not just financial operations. This would provide more complete information about the operations of the bank. In future research, it is possible to use qualitative criteria that would use linguistic terms and appropriate fuzzy methods. However, in these studies, it is necessary to take into account who the experts are and how they evaluate banks. Therefore, it is necessary to ensure that expert assessments are as realistic as possible. More experts should be included in future research because the weight of the criteria can sometimes decide the ranking of banks. In this research, this was not important at all, because one bank had the best of all indicators. In future research, it is necessary to use methods other than the AHP and TOPSIS methods because the ranking of banks is often influenced by the method used. In these studies, it is necessary to compare multiple methods and determine how these methods rank banks. In addition, it is necessary to conduct a sensitivity analysis to examine how the weights of the criteria affect the ranking of banks. In this study, these two analyses were not performed due to the specific values of the indicators, as one bank was the best in all.

6. Conclusions

The stability of the banking system is increasingly becoming one of the most important issues in recent studies. The assessment of bank performance is one of the most important issues in a country’s economy. Performance measurement analyses often face major obstacles such as the uncertainty and complexity of the global market. Mainly, traditional techniques for assessing financial performance in many cases fail to produce satisfactory results. For this, the use of multi-criteria decision-making models in a fuzzy environment has been used successfully and has achieved satisfactory results. In order to assess financial performance within the Albanian banking sector, a hybrid model of multi-criteria decision-making methods was built by combining the fuzzy AHP and TOPSIS methods.
Initially, eight financial criteria were selected and their weights were determined using the FAHP method. Following all the steps of the FAHP algorithm, it resulted that the Equity criterion was evaluated with a weight of 0.23 and was the criterion with the highest weight, the EBT criterion was also evaluated with the same weight, followed by the Sources and Cash criteria, which were evaluated with the same weight of 0.148, the CBNI+ criterion had a weight of 0.096, the Portfolio and Liquid Assets criteria were evaluated with the same weight of 0.086, and the last criterion in terms of weight was NII+ with a weight of 0.043. Then, the use of the TOPSIS method made it possible to rank the banks from the bank with the best performance to the one with the least best performance.
Through TOPSIS method calculations performed for the ranking of second-tier banks in Albania, it resulted that the BKT was ranked first in all three years. This is because all the indicators considered favored this bank, and it was the most successful bank in fulfilling the research objectives and achieving the best overall results in all financial indicators. Raiffeisen Bank was ranked second, where it was clear that this bank was also ranked second in the three years. UBA Bank and ProCredit Bank ranked last. Even though these two banks were ranked last, this does not necessarily mean that these banks should cease their financial activity and be on the verge of bankruptcy. This shows that these two banks have relatively weaker results than other banks in the financial indicators considered, and this shows that they should take proactive measures to improve their financial performance.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, A.P. (Arianit Peci) and A.P. (Adis Puška); methodology, B.D.; software, B.D.; validation, A.P. (Arianit Peci), B.D. and A.P. (Adis Puška); formal analysis, A.P. (Arianit Peci); investigation, A.P. (Arianit Peci); resources, B.D.; data curation, B.D.; writing—original draft preparation, A.P. (Arianit Peci); writing—review and editing, A.P. (Adis Puška); visualization, B.D.; supervision, A.P. (Adis Puška); project administration, A.P. (Arianit Peci); funding acquisition, B.D. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Data and methods used in the research are presented in sufficient detail in the manuscript.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Abbreviations

The following abbreviations are used in this manuscript:
AHPAnalytic Hierarchy Process
ARASAdditive Ratio Assessment
BKTBanka Kombëtare Tregtare
BWMBest–Worst Method
CBNI+Core Business Net Income
CoCoSoCombined Compromise Solution
COPRAScomplex proportional assessment
CRITICCRiteria Importance Through Intercriteria Correlation
DEAData envelopment analysis
DEMATELDecision-Making Trial and Evaluation Laboratory
DERdebt-to-equity ratio
EBTEarnings Before Tax
HDIHuman Development Index
MCDMmulti-criteria decision-making
MOORAMulti-objective Optimization with Ratio Analysis
MOOSRAMulti-objective Optimization on the Basis of Simple Ratio Analysis
NBCNational Business Center
NII+Net Interest Income
ROAreturn on assets
SADCSouthern African Development Community
SAWSimple Additive Weighting
SMEssmall- and medium-sized enterprises
SWARAStepwise Weight Assessment Ratio Analysis
TEA-ISTrigonometric Envelopment Analysis for Ideal Solutions
TOPSISTechnique for Order of Preference by Similarity to the Ideal Solution
WASPASWeighted Aggregated Sum Product Assessment

References

  1. Abdel-Basset, M., Ding, W., Mohamed, R., & Metawa, N. (2020). An integrated plithogenic MCDM approach for financial performance evaluation of manufacturing industries. Risk Management, 22(3), 192–218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Abdel-Basset, M., Mohamed, R., Elhoseny, M., Abouhawash, M., Nam, Y., & AbdelAziz, N. M. (2021). Effcient mcdm model for evaluating the performance of commercial banks: A case study. Computers, Materials and Continua, 67(3), 2729–2746. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Agrawal, V., Seth, N., & Dixit, J. K. (2022). A combined AHP–TOPSIS–DEMATEL approach for evaluating success factors of e-service quality: An experience from Indian banking industry. Electronic Commerce Research, 22, 1–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Ahmed, A.-B., Badi, I., & Bouraima, M. B. (2024). Combined location set covering model and multi-criteria decision analysis for emergency medical service assessment. Spectrum of Engineering and Management Sciences, 2(1), 110–121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Akkoc, S., & Vatansever, K. (2013). Fuzzy performance evaluation with AHP and topsis methods: Evidence from turkish banking sector after the global financial crisis. Eurasian Journal of Business and Economics, 6(11), 53–74. [Google Scholar]
  6. Alaoui, M. E., Yassini, K. E., & Azza, H. B. (2019). Type 2 fuzzy TOPSIS for agriculture MCDM problems. International Journal of Sustainable Agricultural Management and Informatics, 5(2/3), 112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Aldalou, E., & Perçin, S. (2020). Financial performance evaluation of food and drink index using fuzzy MCDM approach. Uluslararası Ekonomi Ve Yenilik Dergisi, 6(1), 1–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Alimohammadlou, M., & Bonyani, A. (2017). A novel hybrid MCDM model for financial performance evaluation in Iran’’s food industry. Accounting and Financial Control, 1(2), 38–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Alsanousi, A. T., Alqahtani, A. Y., Makki, A. A., & Baghdadi, M. A. (2024). A hybrid MCDM approach using the BWM and the TOPSIS for a financial performance-based evaluation of saudi stocks. Information, 15(5), 258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Amile, M., Sedaghat, M., & Pourhossein, M. (2012). Performance evaluation of banks using fuzzy AHP and TOPSIS, case study: State-owned banks, partially private and private banks in Iran. Caspian Journal of Applied Sciences Research, 2(3), 128–138. [Google Scholar]
  11. Amiri, A. R., Haghighi, M., Pirzad, A., & Gholimi Chenarestan Oulia, A. (2023). Identification and ranking of factors affecting the growth and development of the market share of refah kargaran bank. Journal of Management and Sustainable Development Studies, 3(3), 169–190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Angilella, S., Doumpos, M., Pappalardo, M. R., & Zopounidis, C. (2024). Assessing the performance of banks through an improved sigma-mu multicriteria analysis approach. Omega, 127, 103099. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Antunes, J., Wanke, P., Azad, M. A. K., Tan, Y., Faria, J. R., & Mamede, A. (2024). Estimating Japanese bank performance: Stochastic entropic analysis on the basis of ideal solutions. Expert Systems with Applications, 242, 122762. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Anwar, S., Kamran Jamil, M., Azeem, M., Deveci, M., & Antucheviciene, J. (2025). Fuzzy soft topological numbers with an operation of vertex deletion: A comparative study with TOPSIS method and its application in car import decision-making. Cognitive Computation, 17(1), 1–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Arsu, T., & Aytaç, M. B. (2023). Evaluating Turkish banks’ complaint management performance using multi-criteria decision analysis. In Data analytics for management, banking and finance (pp. 197–220). Springer Nature Switzerland. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Asutay, M., & Ubaidillah. (2024). Examining the impact of intellectual capital performance on financial performance in islamic banks. Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 15(1), 1231–1263. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Avşarlıgil, N., Doğru, E., & Ciğer, A. (2023). The bank performance ranking in the emerging markets: A case of Turkey. Sosyoekonomi, 31(55), 69–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Aydın, Y. (2020). A hybrid multi-criteria decision making (MCDM) model consisting of SD and COPRAS methods in performance evaluation of foreign deposit banks. Ekinoks Ekonomi İşletme Ve Siyasal Çalışmalar Dergisi, 7(2), 160–176. [Google Scholar]
  19. Aytekin, A. (2020). Evaluation of the financial performance of tourism companies traded in BIST via a hybrid MCDM model. International Journal of Applied Research in Management and Economics, 2(4), 20–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Ballouk, H., Ben Jabeur, S., Boubaker, S., & Mefteh-Wali, S. (2024). The effect of social media on bank performance: An fsQCA approach. Electronic Commerce Research, 24(1), 477–495. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Batta, K., Arora, S., & Pandey, A. (2022). Financial inclusion in India through micro units schemes-sustainable development for the five year (2015-20) study. Opportunities and Challenges in Sustainability, 1(2), 116–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Baydaş, M., & Elma, O. E. (2021). An objectıve criteria proposal for the comparison of MCDM and weighting methods in financial performance measurement: An application in Borsa Istanbul. Decision Making: Applications in Management and Engineering, 4(2), 257–279. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Baydaş, M., & Pamučar, D. (2022). Determining objective characteristics of MCDM methods under uncertainty: An exploration study with financial data. Mathematics, 10(7), 1115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Baydaş, M., Eren, T., Stević, Ž., Starčević, V., & Parlakkaya, R. (2023). Proposal for an objective binary benchmarking framework that validates each other for comparing MCDM methods through data analytics. PeerJ Computer Science, 9, e1350. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Benítez, J. M., Martín, J. C., & Román, C. (2007). Using fuzzy number for measuring quality of service in the hotel industry. Tourism Management, 28(2), 544–555. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Bobar, Z., Božanić, D., Đurić-Atanasievski, K., & Pamučar, D. (2020). Ranking and assessment of the efficiency of social media using the fuzzy AHP-Z number model—Fuzzy MABAC. Acta Polytechnica Hungarica, 17(3), 43–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Boubaker, S., Le, T. D., & Ngo, T. (2023). Managing bank performance under COVID-19: A novel inverse DEA efficiency approach. International Transactions in Operational Research, 30(5), 2436–2452. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. Bouraima, M., Badi, I., Stević, Ž., Kiptum, C. K., Pamucar, D., & Marinkovic, D. (2024). A novel vehicle routing algorithm for route optimization using best-worst method and ranking alternatives for similarity to ideal solution. Engineering Review, 44(4), 57–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Božanić, D., Pamučar, D., Milić, A., Marinković, D., & Komazec, N. (2022). Modification of the logarithm methodology of additive weights (LMAW) by a triangular fuzzy number and its application in multi-criteria decision making. Axioms, 11(3), 89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Breidbach, C. F., Keating, B. W., & Lim, C. (2020). Fintech: Research directions to explore the digital transformation of financial service systems. Journal of Service Theory and Practice, 30(1), 79–102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Büyüközkan, G., Feyzioğlu, O., & Nebol, E. (2008). Selection of the strategic alliance partner in logistics value chain. International Journal of Production Economics, 113(1), 148–158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Chang, D.-Y. (1996). Applications of the extent analysis method on fuzzy AHP. European Journal of Operational Research, 95(3), 649–655. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Çalikoğlu, C., & Łuczak, A. (2024). Multidimensional assessment of SDI and HDI using TOPSIS and bilinear ordering. International Journal of Economic Sciences, 13(2), 116–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Đukić, Đ., Petrović, I., Božanić, D., & Delibašić, B. (2022). Selection of unployed aircraft for training of small-range aircraft defense system AHP—TOPSIS optimization methods. Yugoslav Journal of Operations Research, 32(3), 389–406. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Ecer, F., Gunes, E., & Zavadskas, E. K. (2024). Focusing on identifying the digital transformation performance of banks in the technology age through a multi-criteria methodology. Transformations in Business & Economics, 23(1), 127–153. [Google Scholar]
  36. Ecer, F., & Pamucar, D. (2022). A novel LOPCOW-DOBI multi-criteria sustainability performance assessment methodology: An application in developing country banking sector. Omega, 112, 102690. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Eftekhari Aliabadi, A., & Momen, M. (2024). Evaluating the performance of private sector banks in Iran based on financial ability indicators using the fuzzy multi-criteria decision making method. Journal of Investment Knowledge, 13(52), 507–525. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. El Alaoui, M. (2021). Fuzzy TOPSIS: Logic, approaches, and case studies (1st ed.). CRC Press. [Google Scholar]
  39. Erdoğan, B. (2023). Financial performance analysis of development and investment banks: TOPSIS method. Dicle Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 34, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Erdoğan, H. H. (2022). A multicriteria decision framework for bank performance evaluation in Turkey. Süleyman Demirel Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 27(1), 98–109. [Google Scholar]
  41. Farahbakhsh, K., Kheradyar, S., Shahroodi, K., & Farahbod, F. (2024). Prioritizing the key factors for performance evaluation of Iran’s banking system based on the balanced scorecard (BSC) approach and the fuzzy analytic network process (FANP). International Journal of Nonlinear Analysis and Applications, 15(1), 151–160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Farrokh, M., Heydari, H., & Janani, H. (2016). Two comparative MCDM approaches for evaluating the financial performance of Iranian basic metals companies. Interdisciplinary Journal of Management Studies, 9(2), 359–382. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Fazeli, Z., Bikzadeh Abbasi, F., & Sardar, S. (2023). Identifying and ranking indicators affecting the evaluation of financial performance in private banks using the fuzzy AHP method. Fuzzy Optimization and Modeling Journal, 4(3), 40–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Foglia, M., Addi, A., & Angelini, E. (2022). The Eurozone banking sector in the time of COVID-19: Measuring volatility connectedness. Global Finance Journal, 51, 100677. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Gavalas, D., Syriopoulos, T., & Tsatsaronis, M. (2021). Assessing key performance indicators in the shipbuilding industry; an MCDM approach. Maritime Policy & Management, 49(4), 463–491. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Genç, E., Keleş, M. K., & Özdağoğlu, A. (2024). A hybrid MCDM model for personnel selection based on a novel Gray AHP, Gray MOORA and Gray MAUT methods in terms of business management: An application in the tourism sector. Journal of Decision Analytics and Intelligent Computing, 4(1), 263–284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Ghosh, R., & Saima, F. N. (2021). Resilience of commercial banks of Bangladesh to the shocks caused by COVID-19 pandemic: An application of MCDM-based approaches. Asian Journal of Accounting Research, 6(3), 281–295. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Gupta, S., Mathew, M., Gupta, S., & Dawar, V. (2021a). Benchmarking the private sector banks in India using MCDM approach. Journal of Public Affairs, 21(2), e2409. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Gupta, S., Mathew, M., Syal, G., & Jain, J. (2021b). A hybrid MCDM approach for evaluating the financial performance of public sector banks in India. International Journal of Business Excellence, 24(4), 481–501. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Gupta, S., Singh, S., Garg, A., & Goel, P. (2023). Examining adoption drivers of payments bank using fuzzy analytic hierarchy process approach. FIIB Business Review. online first. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Guru, S., & Mahalik, D. K. (2021). Ranking the performance of Indian public sector bank using analytic hierarchy process and technique for order preference by similarity to an ideal solution. International Journal of Process Management and Benchmarking, 11(1), 28–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Hassanzadeh, M. R., & Valmohammadi, C. (2021). Evaluation and ranking of the banks and financial institutes using fuzzy AHP and TOPSIS techniques. International journal of operational research, 40(3), 297–317. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Heralová, O. (2024). Merger spin-off project and its effect on financial health of post-transformation companies. International Journal of Economic Sciences, 13(1), 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Hwang, C. L., & Masud, A. S. M. (2012). Multiple objective decision making—Methods and applications: A state-of-the-art survey (Vol. 164). Springer Science & Business Media. [Google Scholar]
  55. Hwang, C. L., & Yoon, K. (1981). Multiple attributes decision making methods and applications. Springer. [Google Scholar]
  56. Iç, Y. T., Celik, B., Kavak, S., & Baki, B. (2021). Development of a multi-criteria decision-making model for comparing the performance of Turkish commercial banks. Journal of Advances in Management Research, 18(2), 250–272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Igbudu, N., Garanti, Z., & Popoola, T. (2018). Enhancing bank loyalty through sustainable banking practices: The mediating effect of corporate image. Sustainability, 10, 4050. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Işık, Ö., Shabir, M., Demir, G., Puska, A., & Pamucar, D. (2025). A hybrid framework for assessing Pakistani commercial bank performance using multi-criteria decision-making. Financial Innovation, 11(1), 38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. İç, Y. T., Yurdakul, M., & Pehlivan, E. (2022). Development of a hybrid financial performance measurement model using AHP and DOE methods for Turkish commercial banks. Soft Computing, 26(6), 2959–2979. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Jakšić, M., Moljević, S., Aleksić, A., Misita, M., Arsovski, S., Tadić, D., & Mimović, P. (2016). Fuzzy approach in ranking of banks according to financial performances. Mathematical Problems in Engineering, 2016(1), 6169586. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Kahraman, C., Gülbay, M., & Kabak, Ö. (2006). Applications of fuzzy sets in industrial engineering: A topical classification. In Fuzzy Applications in Industrial Engineering (pp. 1–55). Springer. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Kantharaju, G., Shubha, A., & KS, N. B. (2024). Comparative performance evaluation of selected public and private sector banks: CAMELS model approach in Indian context-a longitudinal study. Educational Administration: Theory and Practice, 30(5), 7232–7244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Karbassi Yazdi, A., Spulbar, C., Hanne, T., & Birau, R. (2022). Ranking performance indicators related to banking by using hybrid multicriteria methods in an uncertain environment: A case study for Iran under COVID-19 conditions. Systems Science & Control Engineering, 10(1), 166–180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Kilincci, O., & Onal, S. A. (2011). Fuzzy AHP approach for supplier selection in a washing machine company. Expert Systems with Applications, 38(8), 9656–9664. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Kizielewicz, B., & Sałabun, W. (2024). SITW method: A new approach to re-identifying multi-criteria weights in complex decision analysis. Spectrum of Mechanical Engineering and Operational Research, 1(1), 215–226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Kola, F., Gjipali, A., & Sula, E. (2019). Commercial bank performance and credit risk in Albania. Journal of Central Banking Theory and Practice, 8(3), 161–177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Komazec, N., Janković, K., Mladenović, M., Mijatović, M., & Lapčević, Z. (2024). Ranking of risk using the application of the AHP method in the risk assessment process on the Piraeus-Belgrade-Budapest railway corridor. Journal of Decision Analytics and Intelligent Computing, 4(1), 176–186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Kousar, S., Ansar, A., Kausar, N., & Freen, G. (2025). Multi-criteria decision-making for smog mitigation: A comprehensive analysis of health, economic, and ecological impacts. Spectrum of Decision Making and Applications, 2(1), 53–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Koziuk, V., Ivashuk, Y., & Hayda, Y. (2024). CBDC, trust in the central bank and the privacy paradox. Economics-Innovative and Economics Research Journal, 12(2), 219–242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Kumar, K., & Prakash, A. (2019). Developing a framework for assessing sustainable banking performance of the Indian banking sector. Social Responsibility Journal, 15(5), 689–709. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Kumar, P., & Sharma, D. (2023). Benchmarking the financial performance of Indian commercial banks by a hybrid MCDM approach. International Journal of Process Management and Benchmarking, 15(3), 285–309. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Kumar, P., & Sharma, D. (2024). Prioritising the financial performance of Indian private sector banks by a hybrid MCDM approach. International Journal of Process Management and Benchmarking, 16(4), 490–511. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Lan, P. M., Minh, N. K., Khanh, P. V., & Luan, N. T. (2024). The efficiency and the stability of efficiency rankings of Vietnamese commercial banks through mergers and acquisitions from 2008 to 2018. Afro-Asian Journal of Finance and Accounting, 14(4), 581–604. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Liu, Y., Eckert, C. M., & Earl, C. (2020). A review of fuzzy AHP methods for decision-making with subjective judgements. Expert Systems with Applications, 161, 113738. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Makki, A. A., & Alqahtani, A. Y. (2023). Capturing the effect of the COVID-19 pandemic outbreak on the financial performance disparities in the energy sector: A hybrid MCDM-based evaluation approach. Economies, 11(2), 61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Mandic, K., Delibasic, B., Knezevic, S., & Benkovic, S. (2014). Analysis of the financial parameters of Serbian banks through the application of the fuzzy AHP and TOPSIS methods. Economic Modelling, 43, 30–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Marjanović, I., & Popović, Ž. (2020). MCDM approach for assessment of financial performance of Serbian banks. In Contributions to economics (pp. 71–90). Springer International Publishing. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Mastilo, Z., Štilić, A., Gligović, D., & Puška, A. (2024). Assessing the banking sector of bosnia and herzegovina: An analysis of financial indicators through the MEREC and MARCOS methods. Journal of Central Banking Theory and Practice, 13(1), 167–197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Mehdiabadi, A., Sadeghi, A., Karbassi Yazdi, A., & Tan, Y. (2025). Sustainability service chain capabilities in the oil and gas industry: A Fuzzy hybrid approach SWARA-MABAC. Spectrum of Operational Research, 2(1), 92–112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Mishra, A. R., & Rani, P. (2025). Evaluating and prioritizing blockchain networks using intuitionistic fuzzy multi-criteria decision-making method. Spectrum of Mechanical Engineering and Operational Research, 2(1), 78–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Mistrean, L. (2023). Factors influencing customer loyalty in the retail banking sector: A study of financial-banking services in the republic of moldova. Opportunities and Challenges in Sustainability, 2(2), 81–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Moghimi, R., & Anvari, A. (2014). An integrated fuzzy MCDM approach and analysis to evaluate the financial performance of Iranian cement companies. The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 71, 685–698. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Muhammad Ghazali, W. N. I. (2022). Modelling the performance of commercial banks in Malaysia before and during COVID-19 using MCDM approaches. International Journal of Academic Research in Accounting, Finance and Management Sciences, 12(4), 290–301. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Muniz, R. D. F., Cornelio, O. M., & Abdolmaleki, E. (2024). Hierarchical efficiency in banking: Decentralized bi-level programming with stackelberg dynamics. Journal of Operational and Strategic Analytics, 2(4), 225–234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Nguyen, P.-H., Tsai, J.-F., Hu, Y.-C., & Ajay Kumar, G. V. (2022). A hybrid method of MCDM for evaluating financial performance of Vietnamese commercial banks under COVID-19 impacts. In Studies in systems, decision and control (pp. 23–45). Springer International Publishing. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. No, R. K. G., Niroomand, S., Didehkhani, H., & Mahmoodirad, A. (2021). Modified interval EDAS approach for the multi-criteria ranking problem in banking sector of Iran. Journal of Ambient Intelligence and Humanized Computing, 12, 8129–8148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Nosratabadi, S., Pinter, G., Mosavi, A., & Semperger, S. (2020). Sustainable banking; Evaluation of the European business models. Sustainability, 12(6), 2314. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Osmanovic, N., Puska, A., Thomas, S. S., & Stojanovic, I. (2022). Sustainable economic performances of Islamic banks in gulf countries: Bahrain, Oman, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. Journal of Sustainable Finance & Investment. online first. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Othman, M., Nagina, R., & Samdrup, D. (2024). Assessing banking sector performance: A comparative camel study between public and private banks. Revista De Gestão Social E Ambiental, 18(8), e05584. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Ozbek, A. (2015). Efficiency analysis of foreign-capital banks in Turkey by OCRA and MOORA. Research Journal of Finance and Accounting, 6(13), 21–31. [Google Scholar]
  91. Özçalıcı, M., Kaya, A., & Gürler, H. E. (2022). Long-term performance evaluation of deposit banks with multi-criteria decision making tools: The case of Turkey. Pamukkale Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 50, 87–114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Palmieri, E., & Ferilli, G. B. (2024). Innovating the bank-firm relationship: A spherical fuzzy approach to SME funding. European Journal of Innovation Management, 27(9), 487–515. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Pineda, P. J. G., Liou, J. J., Hsu, C. C., & Chuang, Y. C. (2018). An integrated MCDM model for improving airline operational and financial performance. Journal of Air Transport Management, 68, 103–117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Quynh, V. T. N. (2024). An extension of fuzzy TOPSIS approach using integral values for banking performance evaluation. Multidisciplinary Science Journal, 6(8), 2024155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Radovanović, M., Jovčić, S., Petrovski, A., & Cirkin, E. (2025). Evaluation of university professors using the spherical fuzzy AHP and grey MARCOS multi-criteria decision-making model: A case study. Spectrum of Decision Making and Applications, 2(1), 198–218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Raju, V. K., & Kesava Rao, V. V. S. (2020). Financial performance ranking of nationalized banks through integrated AHM-GRA-DEA method. International Journal of Management, 10(3), 15–35. [Google Scholar]
  97. Rao, S. H., Kalvakolanu, S., & Chakraborty, C. (2021). Integration of ARAS and MOORA MCDM techniques for measuring the performance of private sector banks in India. International Journal of Uncertainty, Fuzziness and Knowledge-Based Systems, 29(Suppl. 2), 279–295. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Reig-Mullor, J., & Brotons-Martinez, J. M. (2021). The evaluation performance for commercial banks by intuitionistic fuzzy numbers: The case of Spain. Soft Computing, 25(14), 9061–9075. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Reyes, M. L. A., & Young, M. N. (2024). Portfolio selection on bank corporations in the philippines using fuzzy-analytic network process. Library Progress International, 44(3), 26635–26647. [Google Scholar]
  100. Rezaei, M., & Ketabi, S. (2016). Ranking the banks through performance evaluation by integrating fuzzy AHP and TOPSIS methods: A study of Iranian private banks. International Journal of Academic Research in Accounting, Finance and Management Sciences, 6(3), 19–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Saaty, T. L. (1980). Analytic hierarchy process. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. [Google Scholar]
  102. Safaei Ghadikolaei, A., Khalili Esbouei, S., & Antucheviciene, J. (2014). Applying fuzzy MCDM for financial performance evaluation of Iranian companies. Technological and Economic Development of Economy, 20(2), 274–291. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Salur, M. N., & Cıhan, Y. (2020). Comparison of financial performances of banks by multi criteria decision making methods: The case of Turkey. The Eurasia Proceedings of Educational and Social Sciences, 19, 41–49. [Google Scholar]
  104. Sangaré-Oumar, M. M., Qian, S., Qiu, Y., Bouraima, M. B., Badi, I., & Tengecha, N. A. (2025). Evaluation of factors influencing university graduates’ unemployment in developing country: A multi-criteria decision-making perspective. Spectrum of Operational Research, 2(1), 151–160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Saraçlı, S., Tunca, B., Gül, I., Arı, E., Villi, B., Berk, B. I., Berk, I., & Boca, G. D. (2023). Modeling the influences on sustainable attitudes of students towards environmental challenges: A partial least squares-structural equation modelling approach. Opportunities and Challenges in Sustainability, 2(3), 161–171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Sharma, D., & Kumar, P. (2023). Ranking the performance of public sector banks using fuzzy AHP and fuzzy TOPSIS in balanced scorecard framework: An evidence from India. International Journal of Productivity and Quality Management, 40(1), 1–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Sharma, D., & Kumar, P. (2024). Prioritizing the attributes of sustainable banking performance. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 73(6), 1797–1825. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. Siagian, P. (2023). Determinants of banking operational efficiency and the relationship between the factors to market price: Evidence from indonesia. Economics-Innovative and Economics Research Journal, 11(2), 153–168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Tan, D. Y. S., Woo, S. W., & Wong, Y. C. (2024). Enhancing economic, social, and ecological resilience through sustainable waterfront development in penang. Journal of Urban Development and Management, 3(3), 176–187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. Todorova, V., Moraliyska, M., & Raycheva, I. (2024). De-dollarisation in international payments: Trend or fiction. Economics-Innovative and Economics Research Journal, 12(2), 129–144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Trung, D. D., Dudić, B., Dung, H. T., & Truong, N. X. (2024). Innovation in financial health assessment: Applying MCDM techniques to banks in Vietnam. Economics-Innovative and Economics Research Journal, 12(2), 21–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  112. Türegün, N. (2022). Financial performance evaluation by multi-criteria decision-making techniques. Heliyon, 8(5), e09361. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  113. Ünlü, U., Yalçın, N., & Avşarlıgil, N. (2022). Analysis of efficiency and productivity of commercial banks in turkey pre-and during COVID-19 with an integrated MCDM approach. Mathematics, 10(13), 2300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  114. Ünvan, Y. A. (2020). Financial performance analysis of banks with topsis and fuzzy topsis approaches. Gazi University Journal of Science, 33(4), 904–923. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  115. Ünvan, Y. A., & Ergenç, C. (2022). Financial performance analysis with the fuzzy COPRAS and entropy-COPRAS approaches. Computational Economics, 59(4), 1577–1605. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  116. Yakymchuk, A., Valyukh, A., Poliakova, N., Skorohod, I., & Sak, T. (2023). Intellectual economic development: Cost and efficiency indicators. Economics-Innovative and Economics Research Journal, 11(1), 107–126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  117. Yang, Z. Y., Zhang, Y., & Yu, L. N. (2024). Predicting bank users’ time deposits based on LSTM-stacked modeling. Acadlore Transactions on AI and Machine Learning, 3(3), 172–182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  118. Yazdi, A. K., Okereke, P., Wanke, P. F., Aeini, S. A. S., & Mehdiabadi, A. (2024). Credit rating ranking of Iranian banks based on CAMELS and hybrid multi-criteria decision analysis methods in uncertain environments. International Journal of Operational Research, 49(3), 358–384. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  119. Yeşildağ, E., Özen, E., & Baykut, E. (2020). An assessment for financial performance of banks listed in Borsa Istanbul by multiple criteria decision making. In Uncertainty and challenges in contemporary economic behaviour (pp. 159–183). Emerald Publishing Limited. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  120. Yu, W., Gan, Y., Zhou, B., & Dai, J. (2024). Revisiting the economic policy uncertainty and resource rents nexus: Moderating impact of financial sector development in BRICS. International Review of Financial Analysis, 94, 103324. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  121. Zadeh, L. A. (1965). Fuzzy sets. Information and Control, 8(3), 338–353. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  122. Zanaj, B., Peci, A., & Zanaj, E. (2023, June 21–23). Reviewing of different algorithms application with qualitative variables for the different financial indicators. 10th International Conference on Modern Power Systems (MPS) (pp. 1–4), Cluj-Napoca, Romania. [Google Scholar]
  123. Zeneli, B., & Bara, Ż. (2015). Evolution of banking system in Albania. Finanse i Prawo Finansowe, 2(4), 83–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  124. Zhao, B., Tian, Y., Kenjegalieva, K., & Wood, J. (2024). Measuring the productivity of urban commercial banks in China. International Review of Economics & Finance, 93, 477–489. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1. Research methodology.
Figure 1. Research methodology.
Jrfm 18 00116 g001
Table 1. FAHP and TOPSIS methods with applications in financial analysis.
Table 1. FAHP and TOPSIS methods with applications in financial analysis.
AuthorsApplied ModelField of ApplicationDescription
Fazeli et al. (2023) FAHPBankIdentified and ranked eight indicators that are effective in assessing the financial performance of private banks.
Sharma and Kumar (2023) FAHP and FTOPSISBank Performance assessment of ten public sector banks in India. They used 17 performance indicators.
Gupta et al. (2023) FAHPBank Explored the key factors responsible for the adoption of Payments Bank in the northern region of India.
Arsu and Aytaç (2023) FAHP and TOPSISBank They assessed the performance of 19 banks operating in Turkey in terms of customer complaint management.
Reig-Mullor and Brotons-Martinez (2021) FAHP and TOPSISBank They assessed the performance of Spanish commercial banks with intuitive fuzzy numbers.
Abdel-Basset et al. (2020) AHP, VIKOR, and TOPSISManufacturing industryEvaluated the financial performance of the 10 main steel companies in Egypt.
Safaei Ghadikolaei et al. (2014) Fuzzy AHP, Fuzzy VIKOR, Fuzzy ARAS, and Fuzzy COPRASAutomobile companyThey assessed the financial performance of automotive companies on the Tehran Stock Exchange.
Moghimi and Anvari (2014) FAHP and TOPSISManufacturing industryAnalyzed financial reports of Iranian cement production companies.
Farrokh et al. (2016) FAHP, VIKOR, and TOPSISManufacturing industryAnalyzed financial reports of eight base metal-producing companies in Iran.
Aytekin (2020) TOPSIS Tourism They studied the financial performance of publicly traded tourism companies on BIST for the period 2014–2018.
Türegün (2022) TOPSIS and VIKORTourism Evaluated the financial performance of companies operating in the tourism industry in Turkey.
Table 2. Linguistic and fuzzy scale for importance.
Table 2. Linguistic and fuzzy scale for importance.
Linguistic Scale of ImportanceTFNTFN Reciprocal Value
Equal(1, 1, 1)(1, 1, 1)
Weakly(1/2, 1, 3/2)(2/3, 1, 2)
Fairly strongly(3/2, 2, 5/2)(1/2, 1, 3/2)
Very strongly(5/2, 3, 7/2)(2/7, 1/3, 2/5)
Absolutely(7/2, 4, 9/2)(2/9, 1/4, 2/7)
Table 3. Fuzzy comparison matrix of the eight basic criteria in relation to the goal and their priority vectors.
Table 3. Fuzzy comparison matrix of the eight basic criteria in relation to the goal and their priority vectors.
CriteriaEquityPortfolioSourcesLiquid AssetsCashNII+CBNI+EBT
Equity EqualVery strongFairly strongVery strongFairly strongAbsoluteFairly strongEqual
Portfolio Equal1/Fairly strongEqual1/Fairly strongAbsoluteEqual1/Very strong
Sources EqualFairly strongEqualAbsoluteFairly strong1/Fairly strong
Liquid Assets Equal1/Fairly strongAbsoluteEqual1/Very strong
Cash EqualAbsoluteFairly strong1/Fairly strong
NII+ Equal1/Very strong1/Very strong
CBNI+ Equal1/Fairly strong
EBT Equal
Table 4. Weights calculated for the eight criteria using the FAHP method.
Table 4. Weights calculated for the eight criteria using the FAHP method.
CriteriaWeights
Equity0.2300
Portfolio0.0864
Sources0.1482
Liquid Assets0.0864
Cash0.1482
NII+0.0430
CBNI+0.0961
EBT0.2300
Table 5. Eight financial criteria (in thousands of ALL) of banks and their weights for the year 2020.
Table 5. Eight financial criteria (in thousands of ALL) of banks and their weights for the year 2020.
Equity (0.23)Portfolio
(0.086)
Sources
(0.148)
Liquid Assets
(0.086)
Cash
(0.148)
NII+
(0.043)
CBNI+
(0.096)
EBT
(0.23)
American Bank of Investments SH.A. (ABI Bank)10,312,41335,496,32176,752,31614,599,11011,098,4102,500,5923,112,6581,266,289
Credins Bank (Credins)18,535,243105,695,118228,438,72329,859,11227,073,9896,632,3529,413,4811,086,515
The United Bank of Albania (UBA Bank)1,164,8345,904,9028,581,8672,138,5743,214,12943,372322,456356,654
First Investment Bank Albania Sha (FiBank)3,646,59019,520,93230,597,2482,089,676931,524997,7041,392,877447,315
Intesa Sanpaolo Bank Albania (Intesa)23,198,471149,544,971164,308,146861,76732,432,1943,231,5658,142,4341,508,990
Banka Kombëtare Tregtare (BKT)543,258,8841,619,998,5064,408,288,9391,021,966,079465,266,853133,660,998154,612,64488,474,283
OTP Bank Albania (OTP Bank) 9,456,25558,849,50587,024,5285,535,92612,771,0213,796,4683,852,886830,199
ProCredit Bank Albania (ProCredit)3,187,38928,355,15832,259,4574,515,0504,515,0501,086,984481,256−398,452
Raiffeisen Bank Albania (Raiffeisen)30,426,372115,538,754207,128,00256,327,18142,269,2886,583,0698,565,9782,076,356
Tirana Bank9,984,78237,991,13274,406,11212,789,9966,972,8182,604,2323,325,088824,889
Union Bank5,809,57431,661,63966,046,96212,635,5008,421,7612,230,8382,490,530573,590
Table 6. Ranking of banks for the year 2020 based on PIS, NIS, and CCi.
Table 6. Ranking of banks for the year 2020 based on PIS, NIS, and CCi.
Banksd+d C C i Rank
American Bank of Investments SH.A. (ABI Bank)0.41170.00750.01806
Credins Bank (Credins)0.40450.01620.03864
The United Bank of Albania (UBA Bank)0.41790.00210.005010
First Investment Bank Albania Sha (FiBank)0.41680.00280.00669
Intesa Sanpaolo Bank Albania (Intesa)0.40330.01800.04273
Banka Kombëtare Tregtare (BKT)0.00000.41921.00001
OTP Bank Albania (OTP Bank) 0.41200.00760.01825
ProCredit Bank Albania (ProCredit)0.41770.00210.005011
Raiffeisen Bank Albania (Raiffeisen)0.39840.02240.05312
Tirana Bank0.41290.00640.01527
Union Bank0.41430.00500.01198
Table 7. Ranking of banks for 2020, 2021, and 2022 based on C C i .
Table 7. Ranking of banks for 2020, 2021, and 2022 based on C C i .
Year202020212022
Name of BanksQRankQRankQRank
American Bank of Investments SH.A. (ABI Bank)0.018060.017560.01866
Credins Bank (Credins)0.038640.042030.04523
The United Bank of Albania (UBA Bank)0.0050100.0022110.000711
First Investment Bank Albania Sha (FiBank)0.006690.008390.00909
Intesa Sanpaolo Bank Albania (Intesa)0.042730.039240.03754
Banka Kombëtare Tregtare (BKT)1.000011.000011.00001
OTP Bank Albania (OTP Bank) 0.018250.023950.03615
ProCredit Bank Albania (ProCredit)0.0050110.0060100.006110
Raiffeisen Bank Albania (Raiffeisen)0.053120.063120.06002
Tirana Bank0.015270.016370.01767
Union Bank0.011980.014180.01428
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Peci, A.; Dervishaj, B.; Puška, A. Using Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process and Technique for Order of Preference by Similarity to the Ideal Solution in Performance Evaluation in the Albanian Banking Sector. J. Risk Financial Manag. 2025, 18, 116. https://doi.org/10.3390/jrfm18030116

AMA Style

Peci A, Dervishaj B, Puška A. Using Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process and Technique for Order of Preference by Similarity to the Ideal Solution in Performance Evaluation in the Albanian Banking Sector. Journal of Risk and Financial Management. 2025; 18(3):116. https://doi.org/10.3390/jrfm18030116

Chicago/Turabian Style

Peci, Arianit, Blerina Dervishaj, and Adis Puška. 2025. "Using Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process and Technique for Order of Preference by Similarity to the Ideal Solution in Performance Evaluation in the Albanian Banking Sector" Journal of Risk and Financial Management 18, no. 3: 116. https://doi.org/10.3390/jrfm18030116

APA Style

Peci, A., Dervishaj, B., & Puška, A. (2025). Using Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process and Technique for Order of Preference by Similarity to the Ideal Solution in Performance Evaluation in the Albanian Banking Sector. Journal of Risk and Financial Management, 18(3), 116. https://doi.org/10.3390/jrfm18030116

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop