BHC vs TSM Stock Comparison
BHC currently leads TSM in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 76 vs 66. The clearest difference is value, while TSM has the stronger risk resilience profile.
What is the main difference between BHC and TSM?
BHC leads the current stock comparison as Bausch Health Companies Inc., with the clearest separation coming from value and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Bausch Health Companies Inc. vs Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited
BHC leads
BHC leads by 10 AIQ points, primarily on Value and Momentum, and the lead has widened from 0 points over 30 sessions. Wall Street currently favors TSM on target upside.
Fragile: 4 of 6 evidence groups support BHC, its lead is widening, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Bausch Health Companies Inc.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors BHC over TSM, 76 versus 66 as of Oct 31, 2026. BHC's advantage is driven primarily by stronger value and momentum, while TSM holds the stronger risk resilience profile. BHC also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors TSM. 4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor BHC today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the lead has swung materially session to session. BHC lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 0 to 10 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Bausch Health Companies Inc. and Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited across the Algovestiq AIQ Score, valuation, quality, momentum, risk, technicals and analyst expectations.
Performance over time
Total return with distributions reinvested, from daily closes.
Total return comparison
Growth of $10,000, distributions reinvested
Split-adjusted closes; each distribution is reinvested at the close on its ex-dividend date. Taxes and trading costs are not modeled.
Compare BHC and TSM 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.
- Risk Resilience28 vs 65TSM +37
- Value75 vs 45BHC +30
- Momentum79 vs 52BHC +27
- Quality100 vs 98Even
4 of 6 evidence groups favor BHC. BHC’s edge is concentrated in value and momentum; TSM keeps a meaningful risk resilience edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-10-28, compared against the prior scored session 2026-10-27.
Largest factor move: Momentum +11
New signals
- BB Upper Band Breach — bearish, volatility, short horizon
- Keltner Channel Breakout — bullish, volatility, short horizon
- RSI Overbought — bearish, momentum, short horizon
Largest factor move: Momentum +10
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 3 active signals are unchanged.
BHC's lead narrowed by 2 AIQ points in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — BHC and TSM both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
BHC (Bausch Health Companies Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by value and momentum.
TSM (Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited): the counter-case, on risk resilience, analyst expectations.
The AIQ Score and Wall Street therefore point in different directions on this pair.
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
BHCBHC on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
BHCBHC on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
BHCBHC on the peer-relative Value factor, by 30 points.
Momentum
BHCBHC on the Momentum factor, by 27 points.
Lower downside
TSMTSM on Risk Resilience, by 37 points.
Analyst upside
TSMTSM on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors BHC, analyst targets favor TSM. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | BHC | TSM | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +9.8% | +45% | TSM has more room |
| Target dispersion | 0% | +34% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Hold | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 1 | 7 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
The two are measuring different things. The AIQ Score reads current fundamentals, valuation, trend and risk; analyst targets price forward expectations. A divergence of this kind is either a contrarian opportunity or a sign the model is missing something already priced in — it is worth resolving before acting on either.
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor BHC. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | BHC | 76 vs 66 |
| Fundamentals | BHCon balance | revenue growth 13% vs 17.6%; EPS growth 117.7% vs 8%; TTM ROE 88.8% vs 41.2%; gross margin 71.8% vs 65.8%; operating margin 25.4% vs 57.9% — BHC takes 3 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | BHC | Value 75 vs 45 |
| Technicals | BHC | Price vs 50-day 33% vs -6.6%; vs 200-day 19.6% vs 10.1% |
| Risk Resilience | TSM | Risk Resilience 28 vs 65 |
| Analyst expectations | TSM | Target upside 9.8% vs 45% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of BHC and TSM and are excluded from the count.
AIQ Decision Stability
The conclusion is sensitive to small changes. Treat the lead as provisional and watch the flip conditions below.
- The AIQ gap is moderate at 10 points.
- The leader's advantage has been widening. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The lead has swung materially session to session. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The leader is throwing conflicting signals. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
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 BHC.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 29 – Oct 28BHC lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 0 to 10 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- BHC +10
- 76 vs 66
- 7 sessions ago
- BHC +21
- 78 vs 57
- 30 sessions ago
- Level
- 74 vs 74
- 90 sessions ago
- BHC +12
- 74 vs 62
The lead changed hands 4 times in this window, most recently on Sep 15 when TSM moved ahead of BHC.
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.
5 bullish / 2 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
Only BHC
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (3.96%)
- BB Upper Band Breach — bearish, volatility, short horizon
- Keltner Channel Breakout — bullish, volatility, short horizon
- RSI Overbought — bearish, momentum, short horizon
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
2 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted
Only TSM
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
Both carry 2 more signals that do not separate them: Golden Cross Active, Uptrend Structure Active.
BHC leads the comparison while carrying a conflicted signal state, which is one reason the stability rating is not higher.
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 down while the AIQ Score moved up 1 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price -7.97%, AIQ +1 points).
Price is down while the AIQ Score moved up 3 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price -5.95%, AIQ +3 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.
- 1TSM closes the Value gap — currently 30 points behind, the largest single contributor to BHC's edge.
- 2TSM's MACD Bearish Crossover resolves — a bearish momentum rule currently active against it.
- 3BHC's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 5 bullish and 2 bearish rules at once.
- 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
BHC leads on balance| Metric | BHC | TSM |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 13% | 17.6% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 117.7% | 8% |
| Gross margin | 71.8% | 65.8% |
| Operating margin | 25.4% | 57.9% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 88.8% | 41.2% |
| Debt to equity | -11.73 | 0.14 |
Performance
BHC leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | BHC | TSM |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 7.3% | 1.8% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 18.7% | -3.7% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 14.8% | 9% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 22.2% | 11.6% |
| Year to date | -0.4% | 44.6% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 10.8% | 49% |
Technicals
BHC has the stronger structure| Metric | BHC | TSM |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 78.2 | 41.8 |
| ADX (14) | 19 | 19.9 |
| Price vs 50-day | 33% | -6.6% |
| Price vs 200-day | 19.6% | 10.1% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 45.7% | 35.7% |
Risk
TSM is the more resilient| Metric | BHC | TSM |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.95 | 2.14 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.4 | 1.06 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.76 | 1.68 |
| Max drawdown | -43.9% | -21.6% |
| Current drawdown | -12.4% | -9.5% |
| Annualized volatility | 57% | 39.2% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -4.6% | -4.1% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, BHC or TSM?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, BHC is the stronger of the two as of Oct 31, 2026, scoring 76 against TSM's 66. The edge comes from value and momentum. TSM is not without a case — it holds the better risk resilience profile, which matters more if that is the objective you are optimizing for. 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 BHC or TSM the better buy right now?
BHC carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 31, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 4 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: the lead has swung materially session to session. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor BHC over TSM?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. TSM leads Risk Resilience by 37 points; BHC leads Value by 30 points; BHC leads Momentum by 27 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, BHC or TSM?
Analyst price targets imply +9.8% upside for BHC and +45% for TSM, so the Street currently favors TSM. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors BHC. The two are measuring different things: the model reads current fundamentals, valuation, trend and risk; the Street is pricing forward expectations. A divergence of this kind is either a contrarian opportunity or a sign the model is missing something the analysts have already priced — it is the single most useful row on this page to investigate. Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions, and dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
Which is better value, BHC or TSM?
BHC is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. BHC on the peer-relative Value factor, by 30 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, BHC or TSM?
BHC 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, BHC or TSM?
BHC on the Momentum factor, by 27 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, BHC or TSM?
TSM is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. TSM on Risk Resilience, by 37 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 BHC more profitable than TSM?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 71.8% vs 65.8%; operating margin 25.4% vs 57.9%; ttm roe 88.8% vs 41.2%. BHC leads on two measures and TSM 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 BHC's lead over TSM getting stronger or weaker?
BHC lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 0 to 10 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-06-29 and 2026-10-28. The lead has changed hands 4 times in that window, most recently on 2026-09-15, when TSM moved ahead of BHC.
What would change the BHC vs TSM verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: TSM closes the Value gap — currently 30 points behind, the largest single contributor to BHC's edge; TSM's MACD Bearish Crossover resolves — a bearish momentum rule currently active against it; BHC's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 5 bullish and 2 bearish rules at once; 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 BHC and TSM?
BHC: 5 bullish / 2 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted. TSM: 2 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 BHC is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On TSM it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare BHC and TSM 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.