This study evaluates the financial health of 28 banks in Vietnam using three Multi-Criteria Decision-Making (MCDM) methods: RAM (Root Assessment Method), PSI (Preference Selection Index), and SRP (Simple Ranking Process). The evaluation is based on six criteria: capital adequacy rating, asset quality rating, management rating, earnings rating, liquidity rating, and sensitivity to market risk rating. The results from these methods are compared with those from the CAMELS rating system. The study finds that the rankings of banks using RAM, PSI, and SRP are quite similar to those from the CAMELS system. Banks such as TCB, VPB, MBB, and TP are identified as having good financial health, while banks like BAC A, KLB, NCB, and SCB are considered to have poor financial health. The study highlights the importance of using multiple MCDM methods to ensure the reliability and accuracy of financial health assessments. It also notes that the rankings of banks using different MCDM methods are highly consistent, as evidenced by the high Spearman rank correlation coefficient. The study concludes that the use of MCDM methods provides a comprehensive and objective approach to assessing the financial health of banks, which is essential for managers, investors, and regulators to make informed decisions. The findings contribute to the field of financial health assessment by demonstrating the effectiveness of MCDM techniques in evaluating the financial stability of banks.This study evaluates the financial health of 28 banks in Vietnam using three Multi-Criteria Decision-Making (MCDM) methods: RAM (Root Assessment Method), PSI (Preference Selection Index), and SRP (Simple Ranking Process). The evaluation is based on six criteria: capital adequacy rating, asset quality rating, management rating, earnings rating, liquidity rating, and sensitivity to market risk rating. The results from these methods are compared with those from the CAMELS rating system. The study finds that the rankings of banks using RAM, PSI, and SRP are quite similar to those from the CAMELS system. Banks such as TCB, VPB, MBB, and TP are identified as having good financial health, while banks like BAC A, KLB, NCB, and SCB are considered to have poor financial health. The study highlights the importance of using multiple MCDM methods to ensure the reliability and accuracy of financial health assessments. It also notes that the rankings of banks using different MCDM methods are highly consistent, as evidenced by the high Spearman rank correlation coefficient. The study concludes that the use of MCDM methods provides a comprehensive and objective approach to assessing the financial health of banks, which is essential for managers, investors, and regulators to make informed decisions. The findings contribute to the field of financial health assessment by demonstrating the effectiveness of MCDM techniques in evaluating the financial stability of banks.