TSM vs ASML Stock Comparison
Compare TSM and ASML across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between TSM and ASML?
TSM leads the current stock comparison as Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited, with the clearest separation coming from momentum and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited vs ASML Holding N.V.
TSM leads
TSM leads by 17 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum and Value, and the lead has widened from 3 points over 30 sessions.
Stable: 6 of 6 evidence groups support TSM, its lead is widening, and its signal state is cleanly positive.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited
ASML Holding N.V.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors TSM over ASML, 70 versus 53 as of Sep 11, 2026. TSM's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum and value. TSM also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 6 of 6 covered evidence groups favor TSM today, and the comparison is rated Stable on stability. TSM lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 3 to 17 points over 30 sessions. TSM leads on all four AIQ factor dimensions. Value is itself one of those four, so a sweep is not explained by valuation alone — it deserves additional scrutiny for unmodeled catalysts, expectations or event risk.
Compare Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited and ASML Holding N.V. across the Algovestiq AIQ Score, valuation, quality, momentum, risk, technicals and analyst expectations.
Performance over time
Price-return comparison using available daily close history.
Total return comparison
Growth of $10,000
Based on available close-price history. Distribution reinvestment is not added unless already reflected in the source series.
Compare TSM and ASML against another ticker
Open a multi-ticker workspace without changing this focused pair page.
AIQ Factor Divergence
Where the two separate, on the four dimensions behind the AIQ Score. Bars read outward from a shared zero: further from the centre is a wider gap.
- Momentum74 vs 34TSM +40
- Value42 vs 27TSM +15
- Risk Resilience68 vs 56TSM +12
- Quality96 vs 92TSM +4
6 of 6 evidence groups favor TSM. TSM’s edge is concentrated in momentum and value.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-09-10, compared against the prior scored session 2026-09-09.
Largest factor move: Momentum -8
No new signals fired.
Largest factor move: Momentum -8
No new signals fired.
TSM's lead was unchanged in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — TSM and ASML both carry a full feed there.
Which one fits your objective
The same two names rank differently depending on what you are optimizing for. All six reads are shown at once — none of them is hidden behind a toggle.
Balanced
TSMTSM on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
TSMTSM on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
TSMTSM on the peer-relative Value factor, by 15 points.
Momentum
TSMTSM on the Momentum factor, by 40 points.
Lower downside
TSMTSM on Risk Resilience, by 12 points.
Analyst upside
TSMTSM on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
Where the systematic read and the analyst consensus line up — and where they do not.
| Measure | TSM | ASML | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +32.2% | +25.1% | TSM has more room |
| Target dispersion | +38.4% | +43.4% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 7 | 4 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
6 of 6 covered evidence groups favor TSM. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | TSM | 70 vs 53 |
| Fundamentals | TSMon balance | revenue growth 12% vs 6.4%; EPS growth 22.1% vs 6.2%; TTM ROE 39.3% vs 52.4%; gross margin 64.2% vs 52.7%; operating margin 56% vs 35.4% — TSM takes 4 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | TSM | Value 42 vs 27 |
| Technicals | TSM | Price vs 50-day 3.4% vs -2.5%; vs 200-day 14.1% vs 13.2% |
| Risk Resilience | TSM | Risk Resilience 68 vs 56 |
| Analyst expectations | TSM | Target upside 32.2% vs 25.1% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of TSM and ASML and are excluded from the count.
AIQ Decision Stability
The conclusion rests on a wide gap and broad agreement. It is unlikely to turn on a single session.
- The AIQ gap is wide at 17 points. (supports the conclusion holding)
- 6 of 6 covered evidence groups point the same way. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The leader's advantage has been widening. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The leader's signal state is cleanly positive. (supports the conclusion holding)
Stability combines the score gap, how broadly the evidence agrees, how steady the lead has been across daily snapshots, the current signal state on both names, and analyst dispersion on TSM.
How the comparison changed
119 daily snapshots · May 4 – Sep 10TSM lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 3 to 17 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- TSM +17
- 70 vs 53
- 7 sessions ago
- TSM +20
- 68 vs 48
- 30 sessions ago
- TSM +3
- 63 vs 60
- 90 sessions ago
- TSM +10
- 61 vs 51
The lead changed hands 2 times in this window, most recently on Jun 18 when TSM moved ahead of ASML.
AIQ Signal Divergence
Only the signals that bear on the head-to-head. A conflicted name is carrying bullish and bearish rules at the same time — the technical evidence is not pointing one way.
4 bullish / 0 bearish
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (11.73%)
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
1 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (16.79%)
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
ASML is conflicted, so the timing case there is weaker than the score alone suggests.
Price vs model alignment
Whether the latest session's price move confirms what the model did over the same session, or contradicts it.
Price is up while the AIQ Score moved down 2 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price +1.22%, AIQ -2 points).
Price is up while the AIQ Score moved down 2 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price +0.64%, AIQ -2 points).
What would flip this result
A state, not a forecast. These are the specific, observable changes that would reverse the verdict — not a price prediction.
- 1ASML closes the Momentum gap — currently 40 points behind, the largest single contributor to TSM's edge.
- 2ASML's MACD Bearish Crossover resolves — a bearish momentum rule currently active against it.
- 3TSM's Golden Cross Active breaks down — it is the strongest rule currently supporting the verdict.
- 4A regime shift changes factor weighting — Quality and Value carry the heaviest weights in the composite, so a rotation toward either would move the result most.
The full evidence
Every number behind the verdict. The leader is called above each group so you are not left to solve it from the table.
Fundamentals
TSM leads on balance| Metric | TSM | ASML |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 12% | 6.4% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 22.1% | 6.2% |
| Gross margin | 64.2% | 52.7% |
| Operating margin | 56% | 35.4% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 39.3% | 52.4% |
| Debt to equity | 0.15 | 0.09 |
Performance
Split across windows| Metric | TSM | ASML |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 3% | 0.3% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -0.3% | -6.8% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 4.7% | -2.7% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 20.7% | 21.7% |
| Year to date | 40.9% | 57.7% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 73.2% | 112.2% |
Technicals
TSM has the stronger structure| Metric | TSM | ASML |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 57.7 | 41.6 |
| ADX (14) | 9.6 | 12.7 |
| Price vs 50-day | 3.4% | -2.5% |
| Price vs 200-day | 14.1% | 13.2% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 27.3% | 33.7% |
Risk
TSM is the more resilient| Metric | TSM | ASML |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 2.17 | 2.26 |
| Sharpe ratio | 1.43 | 1.74 |
| Sortino ratio | 2.31 | 3.05 |
| Max drawdown | -21.6% | -22.1% |
| Current drawdown | -10.4% | -15.2% |
| Annualized volatility | 40.4% | 46.6% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -4.1% | -4.4% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, TSM or ASML?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, TSM is the stronger of the two as of Sep 11, 2026, scoring 70 against ASML's 53. The edge comes from momentum and value. This is a systematic score, not a recommendation: it ranks the two on the same evidence, it does not know your holding period or tax position.
Is TSM or ASML the better buy right now?
TSM carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 11, 2026, and the comparison is rated Stable — 6 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Stable rating means the gap is wide and the evidence is broad, so the conclusion is unlikely to turn on a single session.
Why does the AIQ Score favor TSM over ASML?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. TSM leads Momentum by 40 points; TSM leads Value by 15 points; TSM leads Risk Resilience by 12 points. TSM leads on all four AIQ factor dimensions. Value is itself one of those four, so the sweep is not explained by ASML simply being cheaper — it warrants extra scrutiny for unmodeled catalysts, forward expectations or event risk the factors do not capture.
Which has more analyst upside, TSM or ASML?
Analyst price targets imply +32.2% upside for TSM and +25.1% for ASML, so the Street currently favors TSM. The model and the Street agree here, which is a broader base of evidence than either alone. Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions, and dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
Which is better value, TSM or ASML?
TSM is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. TSM on the peer-relative Value factor, by 15 points. The Value factor reads valuation relative to sector peers and to the company's own fundamental quality, so it is not the same as simply having the lower multiple.
Which has stronger growth, TSM or ASML?
TSM on combined revenue and EPS growth. Growth here is measured on reported revenue and earnings, not on forward estimates — it describes what the businesses have delivered, not what the Street expects next.
Which has stronger momentum, TSM or ASML?
TSM on the Momentum factor, by 40 points. Momentum is one of the four weighted factors in the AIQ composite. It has documented persistence over three- to twelve-month horizons, which makes it a timing input rather than a reason to hold something indefinitely.
Which is riskier, TSM or ASML?
TSM is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. TSM on Risk Resilience, by 12 points. Risk Resilience is a weighted factor in the composite; position sizing usually responds to it more usefully than the buy/avoid decision does.
Is TSM more profitable than ASML?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 64.2% vs 52.7%; operating margin 56% vs 35.4%; ttm roe 39.3% vs 52.4%. TSM leads on two measures and ASML on one measure, and there is no single profitability composite that resolves the split — which of the two reads as "more profitable" depends on whether you weight pricing power or operating leverage.
Is TSM's lead over ASML getting stronger or weaker?
TSM lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 3 to 17 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 119 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-05-04 and 2026-09-10. The lead has changed hands 2 times in that window, most recently on 2026-06-18, when TSM moved ahead of ASML.
What would change the TSM vs ASML verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: ASML closes the Momentum gap — currently 40 points behind, the largest single contributor to TSM's edge; ASML's MACD Bearish Crossover resolves — a bearish momentum rule currently active against it; TSM's Golden Cross Active breaks down — it is the strongest rule currently supporting the verdict; a regime shift changes factor weighting — Quality and Value carry the heaviest weights in the composite, so a rotation toward either would move the result most.
What do the current signals say about TSM and ASML?
TSM: 4 bullish / 0 bearish. ASML: 1 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted. A conflicted state means bullish and bearish rules are active on the same name at once — the technical evidence is not pointing one way, and a decision taken on it carries more timing risk. The most decision-relevant rule on TSM is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On ASML it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare TSM and ASML with others
Continue your research
This page answers which of the two. These answer the questions on either side of it.
How this comparison is scored
The Algovestiq AIQ Score composites four factors — Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk, each carrying a fixed weight. Sentiment is reported separately as SentimentPulse and is not folded into the composite. Scores refresh every trading day, and this page regenerates from the latest snapshot rather than being written once.
The verdict names a leader, states how broadly six independent evidence groups agree, and rates how durable that conclusion is given the score gap, its recent trajectory and the current signal state on both names.
How to use side-by-side comparison →This comparison is informational and educational, not investment advice. AIQ scores update daily; re-check after earnings, guidance or macro data that materially changes either name’s factor profile.