TSM vs DGRO Stock Comparison
DGRO currently leads TSM in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 63 vs 58. The clearest difference is momentum, while TSM has the stronger quality profile.
What is the main difference between TSM and DGRO?
DGRO leads the current stock comparison as iShares Core Dividend Growth ETF, with the clearest separation coming from momentum and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited vs iShares Core Dividend Growth ETF
DGRO leads
DGRO leads by 5 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum and Risk Resilience, having only recently taken the lead back from TSM.
Fragile: 2 of 4 evidence groups support DGRO, the lead recently changed hands, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited
iShares Core Dividend Growth ETF
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors DGRO over TSM, 63 versus 58 as of Oct 21, 2026. DGRO's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum and risk resilience, while TSM holds the stronger quality profile. DGRO also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 2 of 4 covered evidence groups favor DGRO today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 5 points. DGRO lead: Reversed — TSM led by 20 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; DGRO now leads by 5.
Compare Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited and iShares Core Dividend Growth ETF 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 TSM and DGRO 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.
- Momentum21 vs 80DGRO +59
- Quality98 vs 63TSM +35
- Risk Resilience67 vs 78DGRO +11
- Value45 vs 42Even
2 of 4 evidence groups favor DGRO. DGRO’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.
Largest factor move: Momentum +3
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 2 active signals are unchanged.
No factor moved materially.
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 9 active signals are unchanged.
DGRO's lead narrowed by 1 AIQ point in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — TSM and DGRO both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
DGRO (iShares Core Dividend Growth ETF): 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 8.7%.
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
DGRODGRO 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
DGRODGRO on the Momentum factor, by 59 points.
Lower downside
DGRODGRO on Risk Resilience, by 11 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 | TSM | DGRO | 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 | 7 | — | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
2 of 4 covered evidence groups favor DGRO. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | DGRO | 58 vs 63 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | Even | Value 45 vs 42 |
| Technicals | Even | Price vs 50-day -0.6% vs 1.6%; vs 200-day 7.3% vs 6% |
| Risk Resilience | DGRO | Risk Resilience 67 vs 78 |
| 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 TSM and DGRO 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 2 of 4 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- 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 DGRO.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20DGRO lead: Reversed — TSM led by 20 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; DGRO now leads by 5.
- Today
- DGRO +5
- 58 vs 63
- 7 sessions ago
- DGRO +7
- 56 vs 63
- 30 sessions ago
- TSM +20
- 72 vs 52
- 90 sessions ago
- TSM +11
- 71 vs 60
The lead changed hands 8 times in this window, most recently on Oct 14 when DGRO 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 / 1 bearish, conflicted
Only TSM
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
6 bullish / 1 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
Only DGRO
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- ATR Contraction - Coiling — neutral, volatility, short horizon (0.80%)
- Keltner Channel Breakout — bullish, volatility, short horizon
- RSI Overbought — bearish, momentum, short horizon
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- 52-Week High Proximity — bullish, risk, long horizon (1.5%)
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
Both carry 1 more signal that do not separate them: Golden Cross Active.
DGRO 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.
Price and the AIQ Score both moved up over the latest session (price +1.6%, AIQ +1 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +0.14%, 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.
- 1TSM closes the Momentum gap — currently 59 points behind, the largest single contributor to DGRO's edge.
- 2TSM's MACD Bearish Crossover resolves — a bearish momentum rule currently active against it.
- 3DGRO's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 6 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
Split| Metric | TSM | DGRO |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 17.6% | — |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 8% | — |
| Gross margin | 65.8% | — |
| Operating margin | 57.9% | — |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 41.2% | — |
| Debt to equity | 0.14 | — |
Performance
Split across windows| Metric | TSM | DGRO |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -4.5% | 2.2% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -6% | 3% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 0.9% | 2.7% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 15.5% | 8.9% |
| Year to date | 39.9% | 14.2% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 41.8% | 17.4% |
Technicals
Split| Metric | TSM | DGRO |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 36.7 | 83.7 |
| ADX (14) | 21.6 | 30.1 |
| Price vs 50-day | -0.6% | 1.6% |
| Price vs 200-day | 7.3% | 6% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 28.8% | 8.7% |
Risk
DGRO is the more resilient| Metric | TSM | DGRO |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 2.11 | 0.45 |
| Sharpe ratio | 1.04 | 1.26 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.66 | 2.11 |
| Max drawdown | -21.6% | -6.9% |
| Current drawdown | -12.5% | -1% |
| Annualized volatility | 38.9% | 9.6% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -3.8% | -1% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, TSM or DGRO?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, DGRO is the stronger of the two as of Oct 21, 2026, scoring 63 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 TSM or DGRO the better buy right now?
DGRO carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 21, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 2 of 4 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 DGRO over TSM?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. DGRO leads Momentum by 59 points; TSM leads Quality by 35 points; DGRO leads Risk Resilience by 11 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, TSM or DGRO?
Analyst price targets imply +36.4% upside for TSM and not covered for DGRO. 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, TSM or DGRO?
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, TSM or DGRO?
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, TSM or DGRO?
DGRO on the Momentum factor, by 59 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, TSM or DGRO?
DGRO is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. DGRO on Risk Resilience, by 11 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 TSM more profitable than DGRO?
Margin data is not comparable for both names in the current snapshot.
Is DGRO's lead over TSM getting stronger or weaker?
DGRO lead: Reversed — TSM led by 20 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; DGRO now leads by 5. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-06-21 and 2026-10-20. The lead has changed hands 8 times in that window, most recently on 2026-10-14, when DGRO moved ahead of TSM.
What would change the TSM vs DGRO verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: TSM closes the Momentum gap — currently 59 points behind, the largest single contributor to DGRO's edge; TSM's MACD Bearish Crossover resolves — a bearish momentum rule currently active against it; DGRO's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 6 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 TSM and DGRO?
TSM: 1 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted. DGRO: 6 bullish / 1 bearish / 2 neutral, 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 TSM is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On DGRO 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.