DBC vs TSM Stock Comparison
DBC currently leads TSM in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 73 vs 58. The clearest difference is momentum, while TSM has the stronger quality profile.
What is the main difference between DBC and TSM?
DBC leads the current stock comparison as Invesco DB Commodity Index Tracking Fund, with the clearest separation coming from momentum and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Invesco DB Commodity Index Tracking Fund vs Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited
DBC leads
DBC leads by 15 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum and Risk Resilience, having only recently taken the lead back from TSM.
Fragile: 4 of 4 evidence groups support DBC, the lead recently changed hands, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Invesco DB Commodity Index Tracking Fund
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors DBC over TSM, 73 versus 58 as of Oct 21, 2026. DBC's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum and risk resilience, while TSM holds the stronger quality profile. DBC also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 4 of 4 covered evidence groups favor DBC today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the lead has already changed hands inside the comparison window. DBC lead: Reversed — TSM led by 8 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; DBC now leads by 15.
Compare Invesco DB Commodity Index Tracking Fund 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 DBC 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.
- Momentum78 vs 21DBC +57
- Quality63 vs 98TSM +35
- Risk Resilience87 vs 67DBC +20
4 of 4 evidence groups favor DBC. DBC’s edge is concentrated in momentum and risk resilience; TSM keeps a meaningful quality edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-10-20, compared against the prior scored session 2026-10-19.
No factor moved materially.
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 8 active signals are unchanged.
Largest factor move: Momentum +3
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 2 active signals are unchanged.
DBC's lead narrowed by 1 AIQ point in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — DBC and TSM both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
DBC (Invesco DB Commodity Index Tracking Fund): the stronger current systematic profile, led by momentum and risk resilience.
TSM (Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited): the counter-case, on quality — but at materially higher volatility, 28.8% against 15%.
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
DBCDBC on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
DBCDBC on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
EvenThe two are level on Value.
Momentum
DBCDBC on the Momentum factor, by 57 points.
Lower downside
DBCDBC on Risk Resilience, by 20 points.
Analyst upside
EvenAnalyst targets are level or not covered for both names.
AIQ vs Wall Street
Where the systematic read and the analyst consensus line up — and where they do not.
| Measure | DBC | TSM | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | — | +36.4% | Level |
| Target dispersion | — | +34% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | — | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 0 | 7 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
4 of 4 covered evidence groups favor DBC. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | DBC | 73 vs 58 |
| Fundamentals | DBCon balance | revenue growth -100% vs 17.6%; EPS growth 174.6% vs 8%; TTM ROE 20.4% vs 41.2%; gross margin 100% vs 65.8%; operating margin 78.5% vs 57.9% — DBC takes 3 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | Not covered | Not covered |
| Technicals | DBC | Price vs 50-day 4.2% vs -0.6%; vs 200-day 16.5% vs 7.3% |
| Risk Resilience | DBC | Risk Resilience 87 vs 67 |
| Analyst expectations | Not covered | Not covered |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of DBC 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 15 points. (supports the conclusion holding)
- 4 of 4 covered evidence groups point the same way. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The lead has already changed hands inside the comparison window. (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 DBC.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20DBC lead: Reversed — TSM led by 8 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; DBC now leads by 15.
- Today
- DBC +15
- 73 vs 58
- 7 sessions ago
- DBC +15
- 71 vs 56
- 30 sessions ago
- TSM +8
- 64 vs 72
- 90 sessions ago
- TSM +1
- 70 vs 71
The lead changed hands 6 times in this window, most recently on Oct 9 when DBC 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.
5 bullish / 1 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
Only DBC
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- ATR Contraction - Coiling — neutral, volatility, short horizon (1.44%)
- RSI Overbought — bearish, momentum, short horizon
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- 52-Week High Proximity — bullish, risk, long horizon (0.1%)
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
1 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted
Only TSM
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
Both carry 1 more signal that do not separate them: Golden Cross Active.
DBC 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 -0.21%, AIQ 0 points).
Price and the AIQ Score both moved up over the latest session (price +1.6%, AIQ +1 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.
- 1TSM closes the Momentum gap — currently 57 points behind, the largest single contributor to DBC's edge.
- 2TSM's MACD Bearish Crossover resolves — a bearish momentum rule currently active against it.
- 3DBC's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 5 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
DBC leads on balance| Metric | DBC | TSM |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | -100% | 17.6% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 174.6% | 8% |
| Gross margin | 100% | 65.8% |
| Operating margin | 78.5% | 57.9% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 20.4% | 41.2% |
| Debt to equity | 0 | 0.14 |
Performance
DBC leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | DBC | TSM |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 0.3% | -4.5% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 3.5% | -6% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 12.4% | 0.9% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 14.9% | 15.5% |
| Year to date | 50.1% | 39.9% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 51.6% | 41.8% |
Technicals
DBC has the stronger structure| Metric | DBC | TSM |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 70.6 | 36.7 |
| ADX (14) | 24.2 | 21.6 |
| Price vs 50-day | 4.2% | -0.6% |
| Price vs 200-day | 16.5% | 7.3% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 15% | 28.8% |
Risk
DBC is the more resilient| Metric | DBC | TSM |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | -0.39 | 2.11 |
| Sharpe ratio | 1.93 | 1.04 |
| Sortino ratio | 2.96 | 1.66 |
| Max drawdown | -16.5% | -21.6% |
| Current drawdown | -0.5% | -12.5% |
| Annualized volatility | 20.8% | 38.9% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -1.9% | -3.8% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, DBC or TSM?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, DBC is the stronger of the two as of Oct 21, 2026, scoring 73 against TSM's 58. The edge comes from momentum and risk resilience. TSM is not without a case — it holds the better quality 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 DBC or TSM the better buy right now?
DBC carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 21, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 4 of 4 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: the lead has already changed hands inside the comparison window. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor DBC over TSM?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. DBC leads Momentum by 57 points; TSM leads Quality by 35 points; DBC leads Risk Resilience by 20 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, DBC or TSM?
Analyst price targets imply not covered upside for DBC and +36.4% for 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, DBC 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, DBC or TSM?
DBC 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, DBC or TSM?
DBC on the Momentum factor, by 57 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, DBC or TSM?
DBC is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. DBC on Risk Resilience, by 20 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 DBC more profitable than TSM?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 100% vs 65.8%; operating margin 78.5% vs 57.9%; ttm roe 20.4% vs 41.2%. DBC leads on two measures and TSM on one measure, and there is no single profitability composite that resolves the split — which of the two reads as "more profitable" depends on whether you weight pricing power or operating leverage.
Is DBC's lead over TSM getting stronger or weaker?
DBC lead: Reversed — TSM led by 8 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; DBC now leads by 15. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-06-21 and 2026-10-20. The lead has changed hands 6 times in that window, most recently on 2026-10-09, when DBC moved ahead of TSM.
What would change the DBC vs TSM verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: TSM closes the Momentum gap — currently 57 points behind, the largest single contributor to DBC's edge; TSM's MACD Bearish Crossover resolves — a bearish momentum rule currently active against it; DBC's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 5 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 DBC and TSM?
DBC: 5 bullish / 1 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 DBC is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On TSM it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
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.