TSM vs DIA Stock Comparison
DIA currently leads TSM in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 68 vs 58. The clearest difference is momentum, while TSM has the stronger quality profile.
What is the main difference between TSM and DIA?
DIA leads the current stock comparison as State Street SPDR Dow Jones Industrial Average ETF Trust, with the clearest separation coming from momentum and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited vs State Street SPDR Dow Jones Industrial Average ETF Trust
DIA leads
DIA leads by 10 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum and Risk Resilience, having only recently taken the lead back from TSM.
Fragile: 2 of 4 evidence groups support DIA, the lead recently changed hands, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited
State Street SPDR Dow Jones Industrial Average ETF Trust
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors DIA over TSM, 68 versus 58 as of Oct 21, 2026. DIA's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum and risk resilience, while TSM holds the stronger quality profile. DIA also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 2 of 4 covered evidence groups favor DIA today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: only 2 of 4 covered evidence groups agree. DIA lead: Reversed — TSM led by 17 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; DIA now leads by 10.
Compare Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited and State Street SPDR Dow Jones Industrial Average ETF Trust 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 DIA 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 84DIA +63
- Quality98 vs 67TSM +31
- Risk Resilience67 vs 82DIA +15
- Value45 vs 47Even
2 of 4 evidence groups favor DIA. DIA’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.
Largest factor move: Momentum +23
New signals
- BB Upper Band Breach — bearish, volatility, short horizon
- RSI Overbought — bearish, momentum, short horizon
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
DIA's lead widened by 5 AIQ points in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — TSM and DIA both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
DIA (State Street SPDR Dow Jones Industrial Average ETF Trust): the stronger current systematic profile, led by momentum and risk resilience.
TSM (Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited): the counter-case, on quality, technicals — but at materially higher volatility, 28.8% against 9.7%.
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
DIADIA 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
DIADIA on the Momentum factor, by 63 points.
Lower downside
DIADIA on Risk Resilience, by 15 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 | DIA | 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 DIA. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | DIA | 58 vs 68 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | Even | Value 45 vs 47 |
| Technicals | TSM | Price vs 50-day -0.6% vs 0.8%; vs 200-day 7.3% vs 3.9% |
| Risk Resilience | DIA | Risk Resilience 67 vs 82 |
| 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 DIA 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 moderate at 10 points.
- 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 DIA.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20DIA lead: Reversed — TSM led by 17 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; DIA now leads by 10.
- Today
- DIA +10
- 58 vs 68
- 7 sessions ago
- DIA +5
- 56 vs 61
- 30 sessions ago
- TSM +17
- 72 vs 55
- 90 sessions ago
- TSM +10
- 71 vs 61
The lead changed hands 6 times in this window, most recently on Oct 14 when DIA 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
3 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only DIA
- ATR Contraction - Coiling — neutral, volatility, short horizon (1.00%)
- BB Upper Band Breach — bearish, volatility, short horizon
- RSI Overbought — bearish, momentum, short horizon
- 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.
DIA 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).
Price and the AIQ Score both moved up over the latest session (price +0.64%, AIQ +6 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 63 points behind, the largest single contributor to DIA's edge.
- 2TSM's MACD Bearish Crossover resolves — a bearish momentum rule currently active against it.
- 3DIA's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 3 bullish and 2 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 | DIA |
|---|---|---|
| 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
TSM leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | TSM | DIA |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -4.5% | 1.6% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -6% | 1.2% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 0.9% | 0.6% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 15.5% | 6.7% |
| Year to date | 39.9% | 9.1% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 41.8% | 14.1% |
Technicals
TSM has the stronger structure| Metric | TSM | DIA |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 36.7 | 74.7 |
| ADX (14) | 21.6 | 19.1 |
| Price vs 50-day | -0.6% | 0.8% |
| Price vs 200-day | 7.3% | 3.9% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 28.8% | 9.7% |
Risk
DIA is the more resilient| Metric | TSM | DIA |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 2.11 | 0.83 |
| Sharpe ratio | 1.04 | 0.76 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.66 | 1.25 |
| Max drawdown | -21.6% | -10.1% |
| Current drawdown | -12.5% | -3.4% |
| Annualized volatility | 38.9% | 12.7% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -3.8% | -1.2% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, TSM or DIA?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, DIA is the stronger of the two as of Oct 21, 2026, scoring 68 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 DIA the better buy right now?
DIA 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: only 2 of 4 covered evidence groups agree. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor DIA over TSM?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. DIA leads Momentum by 63 points; TSM leads Quality by 31 points; DIA leads Risk Resilience by 15 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, TSM or DIA?
Analyst price targets imply +36.4% upside for TSM and not covered for DIA. 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 DIA?
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 DIA?
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 DIA?
DIA on the Momentum factor, by 63 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 DIA?
DIA is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. DIA on Risk Resilience, by 15 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 DIA?
Margin data is not comparable for both names in the current snapshot.
Is DIA's lead over TSM getting stronger or weaker?
DIA lead: Reversed — TSM led by 17 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; DIA now leads by 10. 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 2026-10-14, when DIA moved ahead of TSM.
What would change the TSM vs DIA verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: TSM closes the Momentum gap — currently 63 points behind, the largest single contributor to DIA's edge; TSM's MACD Bearish Crossover resolves — a bearish momentum rule currently active against it; DIA's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 3 bullish and 2 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 DIA?
TSM: 1 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted. DIA: 3 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 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 DIA 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.