CNH vs TSM Stock Comparison
CNH Industrial N.V. vs Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited
TSM leads
TSM leads by 13 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Risk Resilience, but the lead has narrowed from 31 points over 30 sessions.
Fragile: 4 of 6 evidence groups support TSM, its lead is narrowing, and its current signal state is conflicted.
CNH Industrial N.V.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors TSM over CNH, 62 versus 49 as of Sep 5, 2026. TSM's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and risk resilience, while CNH holds the stronger momentum profile. TSM also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor TSM today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the leader's advantage has been narrowing. TSM lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 31 to 13 points over 30 sessions.
Compare CNH Industrial N.V. and Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited across the Algovestiq AIQ Score, valuation, quality, momentum, risk, technicals and analyst expectations.
Compare CNH 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%18 vs 96TSM +78
- Momentum25%79 vs 42CNH +37
- Risk Resilience15%48 vs 69TSM +21
- Value30%55 vs 42CNH +13
4 of 6 evidence groups favor TSM. TSM’s edge is concentrated in quality and risk resilience; CNH keeps a meaningful momentum 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 — CNH 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 risk resilience.
CNH (CNH Industrial N.V.): the counter-case, on momentum, value, valuation — but at materially higher volatility, 58.1% against 24.3%.
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
CNHCNH on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
CNHCNH on the peer-relative Value factor, by 13 points.
Momentum
CNHCNH on the Momentum factor, by 37 points.
Lower downside
TSMTSM on Risk Resilience, by 21 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 | CNH | TSM | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | -11.9% | +35.1% | TSM has more room |
| Target dispersion | +43.3% | +38% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 4 | 6 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
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 | 49 vs 62 |
| Fundamentals | TSMon balance | revenue growth 25.5% vs 12%; EPS growth 18.6% vs 22.1%; TTM ROE 4% vs 39.3%; gross margin 30.6% vs 64.2%; operating margin 13.7% vs 56% — TSM takes 4 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | CNH | Value 55 vs 42 |
| Technicals | CNH | Price vs 50-day 31.2% vs 2%; vs 200-day 26.5% vs 12.1% |
| Risk Resilience | TSM | Risk Resilience 48 vs 69 |
| Analyst expectations | TSM | Target upside -11.9% vs 35.1% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of CNH 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 wide at 13 points. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The leader's advantage has been narrowing. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- 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 TSM.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Apr 23 – Sep 4TSM lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 31 to 13 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- TSM +13
- 49 vs 62
- 7 sessions ago
- TSM +12
- 50 vs 62
- 30 sessions ago
- TSM +31
- 39 vs 70
- 90 sessions ago
- TSM +16
- 49 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.
5 bullish / 2 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (2.34%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- BB Upper Band Breach — bearish, volatility, 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 +4.05%, 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.
- 1CNH closes the Quality gap — currently 78 points behind, the largest single contributor to TSM's edge.
- 2CNH's BB Upper Band Breach 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.
- 4The narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 18 points over 30 sessions, and a further 13-point move would eliminate TSM's advantage entirely.
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 | CNH | TSM |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 25.5% | 12% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 18.6% | 22.1% |
| Gross margin | 30.6% | 64.2% |
| Operating margin | 13.7% | 56% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 4% | 39.3% |
| Debt to equity | 3.39 | 0.15 |
Performance
CNH leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | CNH | TSM |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 14.8% | -2.4% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 21.5% | -0.3% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 27.6% | -4.8% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 19.4% | 17.8% |
| Year to date | 41.6% | 37.2% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 21.1% | 82.6% |
Technicals
CNH has the stronger structure| Metric | CNH | TSM |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 82.6 | 43.6 |
| ADX (14) | 27.8 | 7.6 |
| Price vs 50-day | 31.2% | 2% |
| Price vs 200-day | 26.5% | 12.1% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 58.1% | 24.3% |
Risk
TSM is the more resilient| Metric | CNH | TSM |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1.09 | 2.18 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.62 | 1.57 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.16 | 2.52 |
| Max drawdown | -24.8% | -21.6% |
| Current drawdown | 0% | -12.7% |
| Annualized volatility | 40.9% | 40.4% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -3.4% | -4.1% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, CNH or TSM?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, TSM is the stronger of the two as of Sep 5, 2026, scoring 62 against CNH's 49. The edge comes from quality and risk resilience. CNH is not without a case — it holds the better momentum 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 CNH or TSM the better buy right now?
TSM carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 5, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 4 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: the leader's advantage has been narrowing. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor TSM over CNH?
The composite weights Quality at 30%, Value at 30%, Momentum at 25% and Risk Resilience at 15%. TSM leads Quality by 78 points; CNH leads Momentum by 37 points; TSM leads Risk Resilience by 21 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, CNH or TSM?
Analyst price targets imply -11.9% upside for CNH and +35.1% 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, CNH or TSM?
CNH is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. CNH on the peer-relative Value factor, by 13 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, CNH or TSM?
CNH 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, CNH or TSM?
CNH on the Momentum factor, by 37 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, CNH or TSM?
TSM is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. TSM on Risk Resilience, by 21 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 CNH more profitable than TSM?
TSM leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 30.6% vs 64.2%; operating margin 13.7% vs 56%; ttm roe 4% vs 39.3%.
Is TSM's lead over CNH getting stronger or weaker?
TSM lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 31 to 13 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 CNH vs TSM verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: CNH closes the Quality gap — currently 78 points behind, the largest single contributor to TSM's edge; CNH's BB Upper Band Breach 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; the narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 18 points over 30 sessions, and a further 13-point move would eliminate TSM's advantage entirely.
What do the current signals say about CNH and TSM?
CNH: 5 bullish / 2 bearish / 2 neutral, 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 CNH is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On TSM it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare CNH 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.