CTRA vs TSM Stock Comparison
TSM currently leads CTRA in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 66 vs 49. The clearest difference is quality.
What is the main difference between CTRA 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
Coterra Energy Inc. vs Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited
TSM leads
TSM leads by 17 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Risk Resilience.
Competitive: 4 of 6 evidence groups support TSM, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Coterra Energy Inc.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors TSM over CTRA, 66 versus 49 as of Oct 31, 2026. TSM's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and risk resilience. 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 Competitive on stability: the leader is throwing conflicting signals. TSM lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 17 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Coterra Energy Inc. 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 CTRA 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.
- Quality55 vs 98TSM +43
- Risk Resilience52 vs 65TSM +13
- Value42 vs 45Even
4 of 6 evidence groups favor TSM. TSM’s edge is concentrated in quality and risk resilience.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-10-30, compared against the prior scored session 2026-10-29.
No factor moved materially.
No signal started or stopped since the prior session.
No factor moved materially.
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 3 active signals are unchanged.
TSM's lead was unchanged in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — CTRA 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.
CTRA (Coterra Energy Inc.): the counter-case, on technicals — but at materially higher volatility, 44.4% against 35.7%.
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
EvenGrowth figures are not covered for both names.
Value
EvenThe two are level on Value.
Momentum
EvenThe two are level on Momentum.
Lower downside
TSMTSM on Risk Resilience, by 13 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 | CTRA | TSM | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +29% | +45% | TSM has more room |
| Target dispersion | 0% | +34% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 1 | 7 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
Dividend growth
| Dividend metric | CTRA | TSM |
|---|---|---|
| 5Y dividend CAGR | 17.08% | 15.29% |
| 2020 regular DPS | $0.400 | $1.360 |
| 2025 regular DPS | $0.880 | $2.769 |
| Years increased | — | 4 |
| No cut in window | — | No (1) |
| Cohort rank | not ranked | not ranked |
CTRA grew its split-adjusted regular dividend faster over 2020–2025 — 17.08% a year against TSM's 15.29%.
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
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 66 |
| Fundamentals | TSMon balance | EPS growth 27.1% vs 8%; TTM ROE 11.3% vs 41.2%; gross margin 39% vs 65.8%; operating margin 31.1% vs 57.9% — TSM takes 3 of 4 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | Even | Value 42 vs 45 |
| Technicals | CTRA | Price vs 50-day -1.7% vs -6.6%; vs 200-day 18.8% vs 10.1% |
| Risk Resilience | TSM | Risk Resilience 52 vs 65 |
| Analyst expectations | TSM | Target upside 29% vs 45% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of CTRA 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 17 points. (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 · Jul 1 – Oct 30TSM lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 17 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- TSM +17
- 49 vs 66
- 7 sessions ago
- TSM +8
- 49 vs 57
- 30 sessions ago
- TSM +19
- 49 vs 68
- 90 sessions ago
- TSM +13
- 49 vs 62
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.
No active signals
No signal that the other name lacks.
2 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted
Only TSM
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (8.88%)
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
- 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 -5.95%, 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.
- 1CTRA closes the Quality gap — currently 43 points behind, the largest single contributor to TSM's edge.
- 2CTRA generates a confirmed bullish trend signal it does not currently carry, such as Golden Cross Active or MACD Bullish Crossover.
- 3TSM's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 2 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once.
- 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 | CTRA | TSM |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | -0.6% | 17.6% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 27.1% | 8% |
| Gross margin | 39% | 65.8% |
| Operating margin | 31.1% | 57.9% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 11.3% | 41.2% |
| Debt to equity | 0.23 | 0.14 |
Performance
TSM leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | CTRA | TSM |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -8.7% | 1.8% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -2.7% | -3.7% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 6.8% | 9% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 33.5% | 11.6% |
| Year to date | 23.7% | 44.6% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 26.8% | 49% |
Technicals
CTRA has the stronger structure| Metric | CTRA | TSM |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 52.8 | 41.8 |
| ADX (14) | 19.2 | 19.9 |
| Price vs 50-day | -1.7% | -6.6% |
| Price vs 200-day | 18.8% | 10.1% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 44.4% | 35.7% |
Risk
TSM is the more resilient| Metric | CTRA | TSM |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | -0.72 | 2.14 |
| Sharpe ratio | 1.68 | 1.06 |
| Sortino ratio | 2.31 | 1.68 |
| Max drawdown | -14.9% | -21.6% |
| Current drawdown | -10.3% | -9.5% |
| Annualized volatility | 32.1% | 39.2% |
| 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, CTRA or TSM?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, TSM is the stronger of the two as of Oct 31, 2026, scoring 66 against CTRA's 49. The edge comes from quality and risk resilience. 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 CTRA or TSM the better buy right now?
TSM carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 31, 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 CTRA?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. TSM leads Quality by 43 points; TSM leads Risk Resilience by 13 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, CTRA or TSM?
Analyst price targets imply +29% upside for CTRA and +45% 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, CTRA or TSM?
Neither name separates on the peer-relative Value factor. The two are level on Value. 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, CTRA or TSM?
Growth figures are not covered for both names. 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, CTRA or TSM?
The two are level on Momentum. 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, CTRA or TSM?
TSM is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. TSM on Risk Resilience, by 13 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 CTRA more profitable than TSM?
TSM leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 39% vs 65.8%; operating margin 31.1% vs 57.9%; ttm roe 11.3% vs 41.2%.
Is TSM's lead over CTRA getting stronger or weaker?
TSM lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 17 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-07-01 and 2026-10-30. The lead has not changed hands in that window.
What would change the CTRA vs TSM verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: CTRA closes the Quality gap — currently 43 points behind, the largest single contributor to TSM's edge; CTRA generates a confirmed bullish trend signal it does not currently carry, such as Golden Cross Active or MACD Bullish Crossover; TSM's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 2 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once; 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 CTRA and TSM?
CTRA: No active signals. TSM: 2 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. On TSM it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare CTRA 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.