BMY vs TSM Stock Comparison
BMY currently leads TSM in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 59 vs 58. The clearest difference is momentum, while TSM has the stronger quality profile.
What is the main difference between BMY and TSM?
BMY leads the current stock comparison as Bristol-Myers Squibb Company, with the clearest separation coming from momentum and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Bristol-Myers Squibb Company vs Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited
BMY leads
BMY leads by 1 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum and Value, having only recently taken the lead back from TSM. Wall Street currently favors TSM on target upside.
Fragile: 2 of 6 evidence groups support BMY, the lead recently changed hands, and its signal state is cleanly positive.
Bristol-Myers Squibb Company
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors BMY over TSM, 59 versus 58 as of Oct 21, 2026. BMY's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum and value, while TSM holds the stronger quality profile. BMY also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors TSM. 2 of 6 covered evidence groups favor BMY today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 1 points. BMY lead: Reversed — TSM led by 14 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; BMY now leads by 1.
Compare Bristol-Myers Squibb Company 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 BMY 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.
- Quality71 vs 98TSM +27
- Momentum47 vs 21BMY +26
- Risk Resilience41 vs 67TSM +26
- Value65 vs 45BMY +20
2 of 6 evidence groups favor BMY. BMY’s edge is concentrated in momentum and value; TSM keeps a meaningful quality edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-10-20, compared against the prior scored session 2026-10-19.
Largest factor move: Momentum +18
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 3 active signals are unchanged.
Largest factor move: Momentum +3
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 2 active signals are unchanged.
The lead changed hands: BMY moved ahead of TSM in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — BMY and TSM both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
BMY (Bristol-Myers Squibb Company): the stronger current systematic profile, led by momentum and value.
TSM (Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited): the counter-case, on quality, risk resilience, technicals.
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
BMYBMY on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
BMYBMY on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
BMYBMY on the peer-relative Value factor, by 20 points.
Momentum
BMYBMY on the Momentum factor, by 26 points.
Lower downside
TSMTSM on Risk Resilience, by 26 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 BMY, analyst targets favor TSM. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | BMY | TSM | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +7.2% | +36.4% | TSM has more room |
| Target dispersion | +62.6% | +34% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Hold | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 12 | 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.
Dividend growth
| Dividend metric | BMY | TSM |
|---|---|---|
| 5Y dividend CAGR | 1.61% | 15.29% |
| 2020 regular DPS | $2.290 | $1.360 |
| 2025 regular DPS | $2.480 | $2.769 |
| Years increased | 4 | 4 |
| No cut in window | No (1) | No (1) |
| Cohort rank | not ranked | not ranked |
TSM grew its split-adjusted regular dividend faster over 2020–2025 — 15.29% a year against BMY's 1.61%.
Yield and payout ratio shown elsewhere on this page are current values, not part of the study window.
Split-adjusted regular dividends per share, 2020–2025, excluding special dividends. Research as of Sep 19, 2026.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
2 of 6 covered evidence groups favor BMY. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | Even | 59 vs 58 |
| Fundamentals | BMYon balance | revenue growth 12.9% vs 17.6%; EPS growth 23.7% vs 8%; TTM ROE 46.8% vs 41.2%; gross margin 70.2% vs 65.8%; operating margin 28.3% vs 57.9% — BMY takes 3 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | BMY | Value 65 vs 45 |
| Technicals | TSM | Price vs 50-day -3.5% vs -0.6%; vs 200-day 3.3% vs 7.3% |
| Risk Resilience | TSM | Risk Resilience 41 vs 67 |
| Analyst expectations | TSM | Target upside 7.2% vs 36.4% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of BMY 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 narrow at 1 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Only 2 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The lead has already changed hands inside the comparison window. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The lead has swung materially session to session. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The leader's signal state is cleanly positive. (supports the conclusion holding)
- Analyst targets on the leader are widely dispersed. (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 BMY.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20BMY lead: Reversed — TSM led by 14 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; BMY now leads by 1.
- Today
- BMY +1
- 59 vs 58
- 7 sessions ago
- BMY +2
- 58 vs 56
- 30 sessions ago
- TSM +14
- 58 vs 72
- 90 sessions ago
- TSM +6
- 65 vs 71
The lead changed hands 12 times in this window, most recently on Oct 20 when BMY moved ahead of TSM.
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.
2 bullish / 0 bearish / 1 neutral
Only BMY
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
1 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted
Only TSM
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
Both carry 1 more signal that do not separate them: Golden Cross Active.
TSM 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 down while the AIQ Score moved up 5 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price -0.91%, AIQ +5 points).
Price and the AIQ Score both moved up over the latest session (price +1.6%, AIQ +1 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 Momentum gap — currently 26 points behind, the largest single contributor to BMY's edge.
- 2TSM's MACD Bearish Crossover resolves — a bearish momentum rule currently active against it.
- 3BMY'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
BMY leads on balance| Metric | BMY | TSM |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 12.9% | 17.6% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 23.7% | 8% |
| Gross margin | 70.2% | 65.8% |
| Operating margin | 28.3% | 57.9% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 46.8% | 41.2% |
| Debt to equity | 1.93 | 0.14 |
Performance
BMY leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | BMY | TSM |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 8.8% | -4.5% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -0.9% | -6% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 1.5% | 0.9% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 3.9% | 15.5% |
| Year to date | 14.3% | 39.9% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 42.2% | 41.8% |
Technicals
TSM has the stronger structure| Metric | BMY | TSM |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 47.8 | 36.7 |
| ADX (14) | 19.7 | 21.6 |
| Price vs 50-day | -3.5% | -0.6% |
| Price vs 200-day | 3.3% | 7.3% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 35.8% | 28.8% |
Risk
TSM is the more resilient| Metric | BMY | TSM |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.19 | 2.11 |
| Sharpe ratio | 1.23 | 1.04 |
| Sortino ratio | 2.22 | 1.66 |
| Max drawdown | -16.8% | -21.6% |
| Current drawdown | -9.4% | -12.5% |
| Annualized volatility | 28.3% | 38.9% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.6% | -3.8% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, BMY or TSM?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, BMY is the stronger of the two as of Oct 21, 2026, scoring 59 against TSM's 58. The edge comes from momentum and value. TSM is not without a case — it holds the better quality 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 BMY or TSM the better buy right now?
BMY carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 21, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 2 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: the AIQ gap is narrow at 1 points. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor BMY over TSM?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. TSM leads Quality by 27 points; BMY leads Momentum by 26 points; TSM leads Risk Resilience by 26 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, BMY or TSM?
Analyst price targets imply +7.2% upside for BMY and +36.4% for TSM, so the Street currently favors TSM. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors BMY. 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, BMY or TSM?
BMY is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. BMY on the peer-relative Value factor, by 20 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, BMY or TSM?
BMY 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, BMY or TSM?
BMY on the Momentum factor, by 26 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, BMY or TSM?
TSM is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. TSM on Risk Resilience, by 26 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 BMY more profitable than TSM?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 70.2% vs 65.8%; operating margin 28.3% vs 57.9%; ttm roe 46.8% vs 41.2%. BMY 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 BMY's lead over TSM getting stronger or weaker?
BMY lead: Reversed — TSM led by 14 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; BMY now leads by 1. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-06-21 and 2026-10-20. The lead has changed hands 12 times in that window, most recently on 2026-10-20, when BMY moved ahead of TSM.
What would change the BMY vs TSM verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: TSM closes the Momentum gap — currently 26 points behind, the largest single contributor to BMY's edge; TSM's MACD Bearish Crossover resolves — a bearish momentum rule currently active against it; BMY'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 BMY and TSM?
BMY: 2 bullish / 0 bearish / 1 neutral. TSM: 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 BMY is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On TSM it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare BMY 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.