CRUS vs TSM Stock Comparison
Compare CRUS and TSM across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between CRUS and TSM?
TSM leads the current stock comparison as Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited, with the clearest separation coming from momentum and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Cirrus Logic, Inc. vs Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited
TSM leads
TSM leads by 5 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum and Quality. Wall Street currently favors CRUS on target upside.
Fragile: 3 of 6 evidence groups support TSM, and its signal state is cleanly positive.
Cirrus Logic, Inc.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors TSM over CRUS, 70 versus 65 as of Sep 11, 2026. TSM's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum and quality, while CRUS 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 CRUS. 3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor TSM today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 5 points. TSM lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 5 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Cirrus Logic, Inc. 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 CRUS 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.
- Value72 vs 42CRUS +30
- Momentum45 vs 74TSM +29
- Quality73 vs 96TSM +23
- Risk Resilience69 vs 68Even
3 of 6 evidence groups favor TSM. TSM’s edge is concentrated in momentum and quality; CRUS keeps a meaningful value edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-09-10, compared against the prior scored session 2026-09-09.
Largest factor move: Momentum +17
No new signals fired.
Largest factor move: Momentum -8
No new signals fired.
TSM's lead narrowed by 6 AIQ points in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — CRUS 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 momentum and quality.
CRUS (Cirrus Logic, 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 most heavily.
Growth
TSMTSM on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
CRUSCRUS on the peer-relative Value factor, by 30 points.
Momentum
TSMTSM on the Momentum factor, by 29 points.
Lower downside
TSMTSM carries the lower 1-month annualized volatility.
Analyst upside
CRUSCRUS 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 CRUS. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | CRUS | TSM | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +47.6% | +32.2% | CRUS has more room |
| Target dispersion | +39.9% | +38.4% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 3 | 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
3 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 | 65 vs 70 |
| Fundamentals | TSM | revenue growth 2.5% vs 12%; EPS growth -5.6% vs 22.1%; TTM ROE 20.4% vs 39.3%; gross margin 52.8% vs 64.2%; operating margin 23% vs 56% |
| Valuation | CRUS | Value 72 vs 42 |
| Technicals | TSM | Price vs 50-day -6.7% vs 3.4%; vs 200-day -16.8% vs 14.1% |
| Risk Resilience | Even | Risk Resilience 69 vs 68 |
| Analyst expectations | CRUS | Target upside 47.6% vs 32.2% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of CRUS 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 5 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- 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
119 daily snapshots · May 4 – Sep 10TSM lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 5 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- TSM +5
- 65 vs 70
- 7 sessions ago
- TSM +6
- 62 vs 68
- 30 sessions ago
- TSM +4
- 59 vs 63
- 90 sessions ago
- TSM +1
- 60 vs 61
The lead changed hands 7 times in this window, most recently on Jul 9 when CRUS 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.
1 bullish / 3 bearish, conflicted
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (9.93%)
- 52-Week Low Proximity — bearish, risk, long horizon (2.4%)
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
4 bullish / 0 bearish
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (11.73%)
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
CRUS 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 and the AIQ Score both moved up over the latest session (price +1.98%, AIQ +4 points).
Price is up while the AIQ Score moved down 2 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price +1.22%, AIQ -2 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.
- 1CRUS closes the Momentum gap — currently 29 points behind, the largest single contributor to TSM's edge.
- 2CRUS'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 — 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
TSM leads on balance| Metric | CRUS | TSM |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 2.5% | 12% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -5.6% | 22.1% |
| Gross margin | 52.8% | 64.2% |
| Operating margin | 23% | 56% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 20.4% | 39.3% |
| Debt to equity | 0.08 | 0.15 |
Performance
TSM leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | CRUS | TSM |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 3% | 3% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -4.4% | -0.3% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -26.2% | 4.7% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -14% | 20.7% |
| Year to date | -1.7% | 40.9% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -0.8% | 73.2% |
Technicals
TSM has the stronger structure| Metric | CRUS | TSM |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 49.1 | 57.7 |
| ADX (14) | 46.2 | 9.6 |
| Price vs 50-day | -6.7% | 3.4% |
| Price vs 200-day | -16.8% | 14.1% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 31.1% | 27.3% |
Risk
Split| Metric | CRUS | TSM |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1.19 | 2.17 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.08 | 1.43 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.11 | 2.31 |
| Max drawdown | -39.4% | -21.6% |
| Current drawdown | -34.9% | -10.4% |
| Annualized volatility | 36.8% | 40.4% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -3.7% | -4.1% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, CRUS or TSM?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, TSM is the stronger of the two as of Sep 11, 2026, scoring 70 against CRUS's 65. The edge comes from momentum and quality. CRUS 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 CRUS or TSM the better buy right now?
TSM carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 11, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: the AIQ gap is narrow at 5 points. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor TSM over CRUS?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. CRUS leads Value by 30 points; TSM leads Momentum by 29 points; TSM leads Quality by 23 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, CRUS or TSM?
Analyst price targets imply +47.6% upside for CRUS and +32.2% for TSM, so the Street currently favors CRUS. 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, CRUS or TSM?
CRUS is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. CRUS 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, CRUS 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, CRUS or TSM?
TSM on the Momentum factor, by 29 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, CRUS or TSM?
TSM is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. TSM carries the lower 1-month annualized volatility. Risk Resilience is a weighted factor in the composite; position sizing usually responds to it more usefully than the buy/avoid decision does.
Is CRUS more profitable than TSM?
TSM leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 52.8% vs 64.2%; operating margin 23% vs 56%; ttm roe 20.4% vs 39.3%.
Is TSM's lead over CRUS getting stronger or weaker?
TSM lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 5 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 119 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-05-04 and 2026-09-10. The lead has changed hands 7 times in that window, most recently on 2026-07-09, when CRUS moved ahead of TSM.
What would change the CRUS vs TSM verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: CRUS closes the Momentum gap — currently 29 points behind, the largest single contributor to TSM's edge; CRUS'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 — 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 CRUS and TSM?
CRUS: 1 bullish / 3 bearish, conflicted. TSM: 4 bullish / 0 bearish. 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 CRUS is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon). On TSM it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare CRUS 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.