CCJ vs TSM Stock Comparison
Compare CCJ and TSM across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between CCJ and TSM?
TSM leads the current stock comparison as Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited, with the clearest separation coming from quality and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Cameco Corporation vs Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited
TSM leads
TSM leads by 24 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Value, and the lead has widened from 21 points over 30 sessions.
Stable: 6 of 6 evidence groups support TSM, its lead is widening, and its signal state is cleanly positive.
Cameco Corporation
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors TSM over CCJ, 68 versus 44 as of Sep 6, 2026. TSM's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and value. TSM also shows the weaker 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 21 to 24 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 Cameco Corporation and Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited 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 CCJ 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.
- Quality30%45 vs 96TSM +51
- Value30%24 vs 42TSM +18
- Momentum25%56 vs 63TSM +7
- Risk Resilience15%63 vs 69TSM +6
6 of 6 evidence groups favor TSM. TSM’s edge is concentrated in quality and value.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-09-05, compared against the prior scored session 2026-09-04.
No factor moved materially.
No new signals fired.
No factor moved materially.
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 — CCJ and TSM 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 at 30% each.
Growth
TSMTSM on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
TSMTSM on the peer-relative Value factor, by 18 points.
Momentum
TSMTSM on the Momentum factor, by 7 points.
Lower downside
TSMTSM on Risk Resilience, by 6 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 | CCJ | TSM | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +26.1% | +33.6% | TSM has more room |
| Target dispersion | +61.4% | +38.4% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 5 | 7 | 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 | 44 vs 68 |
| Fundamentals | TSM | revenue growth -3.7% vs 12%; EPS growth -81.3% vs 22.1%; TTM ROE 5.1% vs 39.3%; gross margin 27.6% vs 64.2%; operating margin 14.3% vs 56% |
| Valuation | TSM | Value 24 vs 42 |
| Technicals | TSM | Price vs 50-day 5.6% vs 2%; vs 200-day -4.4% vs 15% |
| Risk Resilience | TSM | Risk Resilience 63 vs 69 |
| Analyst expectations | TSM | Target upside 26.1% vs 33.6% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of CCJ and TSM 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 24 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
120 daily snapshots · Apr 24 – Sep 5TSM lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 21 to 24 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- TSM +24
- 44 vs 68
- 7 sessions ago
- TSM +17
- 44 vs 61
- 30 sessions ago
- TSM +21
- 49 vs 70
- 90 sessions ago
- TSM +25
- 38 vs 63
The lead has not changed hands in this window.
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.
0 bullish / 3 bearish / 1 neutral
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (10.46%)
- Beta Spike Warning — bearish, risk, long horizon
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (3.96%)
4 bullish / 0 bearish
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (12.76%)
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
Price vs model alignment
Whether the latest session's price move confirms what the model did over the same session, or contradicts it.
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +0.12%, AIQ 0 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +2.85%, AIQ 0 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.
- 1CCJ closes the Quality gap — currently 51 points behind, the largest single contributor to TSM's edge.
- 2CCJ's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend 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 — the composite weights Quality and Value at 30% each, 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 | CCJ | TSM |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | -3.7% | 12% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -81.3% | 22.1% |
| Gross margin | 27.6% | 64.2% |
| Operating margin | 14.3% | 56% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 5.1% | 39.3% |
| Debt to equity | 0.14 | 0.15 |
Performance
TSM leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | CCJ | TSM |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 0.7% | 2.7% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 3.4% | 2.1% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -2.6% | 3.3% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -8.2% | 26.6% |
| Year to date | 10.1% | 41.1% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 30.5% | 85.4% |
Technicals
TSM has the stronger structure| Metric | CCJ | TSM |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 53.1 | 48.7 |
| ADX (14) | 15.4 | 7.6 |
| Price vs 50-day | 5.6% | 2% |
| Price vs 200-day | -4.4% | 15% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 45.7% | 25.9% |
Risk
TSM is the more resilient| Metric | CCJ | TSM |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 2.37 | 2.18 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.7 | 1.6 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.21 | 2.57 |
| Max drawdown | -36.9% | -21.6% |
| Current drawdown | -24.9% | -10.2% |
| Annualized volatility | 55.5% | 40.5% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -5.1% | -4.1% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, CCJ or TSM?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, TSM is the stronger of the two as of Sep 6, 2026, scoring 68 against CCJ's 44. The edge comes from quality 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 CCJ or TSM the better buy right now?
TSM carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 6, 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 CCJ?
The composite weights Quality at 30%, Value at 30%, Momentum at 25% and Risk Resilience at 15%. TSM leads Quality by 51 points; TSM leads Value by 18 points; TSM leads Momentum by 7 points. TSM leads on all four AIQ factor dimensions. Value is itself one of those four, so the sweep is not explained by CCJ 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, CCJ or TSM?
Analyst price targets imply +26.1% upside for CCJ and +33.6% for TSM, 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, CCJ or TSM?
TSM is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. TSM on the peer-relative Value factor, by 18 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, CCJ or TSM?
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, CCJ or TSM?
TSM on the Momentum factor, by 7 points. Momentum carries 25% of 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, CCJ or TSM?
TSM is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. TSM on Risk Resilience, by 6 points. The Risk Resilience factor weights 15% of the composite; position sizing usually responds to it more usefully than the buy/avoid decision does.
Is CCJ more profitable than TSM?
TSM leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 27.6% vs 64.2%; operating margin 14.3% vs 56%; ttm roe 5.1% vs 39.3%.
Is TSM's lead over CCJ getting stronger or weaker?
TSM lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 21 to 24 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-04-24 and 2026-09-05. The lead has not changed hands in that window.
What would change the CCJ vs TSM verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: CCJ closes the Quality gap — currently 51 points behind, the largest single contributor to TSM's edge; CCJ's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend 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 — the composite weights Quality and Value at 30% each, so a rotation toward either would move the result most.
What do the current signals say about CCJ and TSM?
CCJ: 0 bullish / 3 bearish / 1 neutral. TSM: 4 bullish / 0 bearish. The most decision-relevant rule on CCJ is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon). On TSM it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare CCJ and TSM with others
How this comparison is scored
The Algovestiq AIQ Score composites four factors — Quality (30%), Value (30%), Momentum (25%) and Risk (15%). 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.