CMI vs TSM Stock Comparison
Cummins Inc. vs Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited
TSM leads
TSM leads by 16 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Momentum. Wall Street currently favors CMI on target upside.
Competitive: 4 of 6 evidence groups support TSM, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Cummins Inc.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors TSM over CMI, 62 versus 46 as of Sep 5, 2026. TSM's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and momentum, while CMI holds the stronger value profile. TSM also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors CMI. 4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor TSM today, and the comparison is rated Competitive on stability: the leader is throwing conflicting signals. TSM lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 16 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Cummins Inc. and Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited across the Algovestiq AIQ Score, valuation, quality, momentum, risk, technicals and analyst expectations.
Compare CMI 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%54 vs 96TSM +42
- Momentum25%10 vs 42TSM +32
- Value30%59 vs 42CMI +17
- Risk Resilience15%63 vs 69TSM +6
4 of 6 evidence groups favor TSM. TSM’s edge is concentrated in quality and momentum; CMI keeps a meaningful value edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-09-04, compared against the prior scored session 2026-09-03.
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 — CMI and TSM both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
TSM (Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality and momentum.
CMI (Cummins Inc.): the counter-case, on value, valuation, 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
TSMTSM on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value at 30% each.
Growth
CMICMI on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
CMICMI on the peer-relative Value factor, by 17 points.
Momentum
TSMTSM on the Momentum factor, by 32 points.
Lower downside
TSMTSM on Risk Resilience, by 6 points.
Analyst upside
CMICMI on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors TSM, analyst targets favor CMI. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | CMI | TSM | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +42.3% | +35.1% | CMI has more room |
| Target dispersion | +25.2% | +38% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 10 | 6 | 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 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 | 46 vs 62 |
| Fundamentals | TSMon balance | revenue growth 12.6% vs 12%; EPS growth 42.7% vs 22.1%; TTM ROE 21.9% vs 39.3%; gross margin 25.3% vs 64.2%; operating margin 11.1% vs 56% — TSM takes 3 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | CMI | Value 59 vs 42 |
| Technicals | TSM | Price vs 50-day -11.8% vs 2%; vs 200-day -8% vs 12.1% |
| Risk Resilience | TSM | Risk Resilience 63 vs 69 |
| Analyst expectations | CMI | Target upside 42.3% vs 35.1% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of CMI and TSM and are excluded from the count.
AIQ Decision Stability
The two are close enough that your objective, not the score, should decide.
- The AIQ gap is wide at 16 points. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The lead has been steady session to session. (supports the conclusion holding)
- 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 TSM.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Apr 23 – Sep 4TSM lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 16 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- TSM +16
- 46 vs 62
- 7 sessions ago
- TSM +18
- 44 vs 62
- 30 sessions ago
- TSM +18
- 52 vs 70
- 90 sessions ago
- TSM +8
- 57 vs 65
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.
2 bullish / 2 bearish, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (6.10%)
- Keltner Channel Breakdown — bearish, volatility, short horizon
- RSI Oversold - Potential Bounce — bullish, momentum, short horizon
1 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (13.02%)
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
TSM 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.
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +2.8%, 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.
- 1CMI closes the Quality gap — currently 42 points behind, the largest single contributor to TSM's edge.
- 2CMI's Keltner Channel Breakdown resolves — a bearish volatility rule currently active against it.
- 3TSM's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once.
- 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 | CMI | TSM |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 12.6% | 12% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 42.7% | 22.1% |
| Gross margin | 25.3% | 64.2% |
| Operating margin | 11.1% | 56% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 21.9% | 39.3% |
| Debt to equity | 0.64 | 0.15 |
Performance
TSM leads 6 of 6 windows| Metric | CMI | TSM |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -4.9% | -2.4% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -13.8% | -0.3% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -16.4% | -4.8% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -1.9% | 17.8% |
| Year to date | 6.9% | 37.2% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 38% | 82.6% |
Technicals
TSM has the stronger structure| Metric | CMI | TSM |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 15.1 | 43.6 |
| ADX (14) | 48.6 | 7.6 |
| Price vs 50-day | -11.8% | 2% |
| Price vs 200-day | -8% | 12.1% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 20.6% | 24.3% |
Risk
TSM is the more resilient| Metric | CMI | TSM |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1.6 | 2.18 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.98 | 1.57 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.43 | 2.52 |
| Max drawdown | -25% | -21.6% |
| Current drawdown | -25% | -12.7% |
| Annualized volatility | 36.7% | 40.4% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -3.2% | -4.1% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, CMI or TSM?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, TSM is the stronger of the two as of Sep 5, 2026, scoring 62 against CMI's 46. The edge comes from quality and momentum. CMI is not without a case — it holds the better value 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 CMI or TSM the better buy right now?
TSM carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 5, 2026, and the comparison is rated Competitive — 4 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Competitive rating means the two are close enough that your objective, not the score, should decide.
Why does the AIQ Score favor TSM over CMI?
The composite weights Quality at 30%, Value at 30%, Momentum at 25% and Risk Resilience at 15%. TSM leads Quality by 42 points; TSM leads Momentum by 32 points; CMI leads Value by 17 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, CMI or TSM?
Analyst price targets imply +42.3% upside for CMI and +35.1% for TSM, so the Street currently favors CMI. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors TSM. 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, CMI or TSM?
CMI is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. CMI on the peer-relative Value factor, by 17 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, CMI or TSM?
CMI 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, CMI or TSM?
TSM on the Momentum factor, by 32 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, CMI 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 CMI more profitable than TSM?
TSM leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 25.3% vs 64.2%; operating margin 11.1% vs 56%; ttm roe 21.9% vs 39.3%.
Is TSM's lead over CMI getting stronger or weaker?
TSM lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 16 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-04-23 and 2026-09-04. The lead has not changed hands in that window.
What would change the CMI vs TSM verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: CMI closes the Quality gap — currently 42 points behind, the largest single contributor to TSM's edge; CMI's Keltner Channel Breakdown resolves — a bearish volatility rule currently active against it; TSM's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once; 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 CMI and TSM?
CMI: 2 bullish / 2 bearish, conflicted. 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 CMI is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On TSM it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare CMI 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.