DT vs TSM Stock Comparison
Compare DT and TSM across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between DT 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
Dynatrace, Inc. vs Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited
TSM leads
TSM leads by 8 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Risk Resilience.
Competitive: 4 of 6 evidence groups support TSM, and its signal state is cleanly positive.
Dynatrace, Inc.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors TSM over DT, 68 versus 60 as of Sep 6, 2026. TSM's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and risk resilience, while DT holds the stronger momentum profile. 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. TSM lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 8 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Dynatrace, 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 DT 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.
- Quality30%65 vs 96TSM +31
- Risk Resilience15%52 vs 69TSM +17
- Momentum25%74 vs 63DT +11
- Value30%49 vs 42DT +7
4 of 6 evidence groups favor TSM. TSM’s edge is concentrated in quality and risk resilience; DT keeps a meaningful momentum edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-09-05, compared against the prior scored session 2026-09-04.
No factor moved materially.
No new signals fired.
No factor moved materially.
No new signals fired.
TSM's lead was unchanged in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — DT 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.
DT (Dynatrace, Inc.): the counter-case, on momentum, value, valuation — but at materially higher volatility, 40.1% against 25.9%.
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 at 30% each.
Growth
DTDT on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
DTDT on the peer-relative Value factor, by 7 points.
Momentum
DTDT on the Momentum factor, by 11 points.
Lower downside
TSMTSM on Risk Resilience, by 17 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 | DT | TSM | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | -1% | +33.6% | TSM has more room |
| Target dispersion | +56.4% | +38.4% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 16 | 7 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
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 | 60 vs 68 |
| Fundamentals | TSMon balance | revenue growth 4.3% vs 12%; EPS growth 122.2% vs 22.1%; TTM ROE 5.7% vs 39.3%; gross margin 81.4% vs 64.2%; operating margin 13% vs 56% — TSM takes 3 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | DT | Value 49 vs 42 |
| Technicals | DT | Price vs 50-day 10.2% vs 2%; vs 200-day 25% vs 15% |
| Risk Resilience | TSM | Risk Resilience 52 vs 69 |
| Analyst expectations | TSM | Target upside -1% vs 33.6% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of DT 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 moderate at 8 points.
- 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
120 daily snapshots · Apr 24 – Sep 5TSM lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 8 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- TSM +8
- 60 vs 68
- 7 sessions ago
- DT +1
- 62 vs 61
- 30 sessions ago
- TSM +8
- 62 vs 70
- 90 sessions ago
- Level
- 63 vs 63
The lead changed hands 9 times in this window, most recently on Sep 2 when TSM moved ahead of DT.
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.
3 bullish / 1 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (13.42%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
4 bullish / 0 bearish
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (12.76%)
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
DT 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.
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price -1.63%, AIQ 0 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +2.85%, 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.
- 1DT closes the Quality gap — currently 31 points behind, the largest single contributor to TSM's edge.
- 2DT's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend.
- 3TSM's Golden Cross Active breaks down — it is the strongest rule currently supporting the verdict.
- 4A regime shift changes factor weighting — the composite weights Quality and Value at 30% each, 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 | DT | TSM |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 4.3% | 12% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 122.2% | 22.1% |
| Gross margin | 81.4% | 64.2% |
| Operating margin | 13% | 56% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 5.7% | 39.3% |
| Debt to equity | 0.06 | 0.15 |
Performance
Split across windows| Metric | DT | TSM |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -3.3% | 2.7% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 6% | 2.1% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 23% | 3.3% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 32.1% | 26.6% |
| Year to date | 19.8% | 41.1% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 3.3% | 85.4% |
Technicals
DT has the stronger structure| Metric | DT | TSM |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 64.5 | 48.7 |
| ADX (14) | 20.3 | 7.6 |
| Price vs 50-day | 10.2% | 2% |
| Price vs 200-day | 25% | 15% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 40.1% | 25.9% |
Risk
TSM is the more resilient| Metric | DT | TSM |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.58 | 2.18 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.22 | 1.6 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.31 | 2.57 |
| Max drawdown | -36.5% | -21.6% |
| Current drawdown | -4.9% | -10.2% |
| Annualized volatility | 42.4% | 40.5% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -4% | -4.1% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, DT or TSM?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, TSM is the stronger of the two as of Sep 6, 2026, scoring 68 against DT's 60. The edge comes from quality and risk resilience. DT is not without a case — it holds the better momentum 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 DT or TSM the better buy right now?
TSM carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 6, 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 DT?
The composite weights Quality at 30%, Value at 30%, Momentum at 25% and Risk Resilience at 15%. TSM leads Quality by 31 points; TSM leads Risk Resilience by 17 points; DT leads Momentum by 11 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, DT or TSM?
Analyst price targets imply -1% upside for DT and +33.6% 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, DT or TSM?
DT is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. DT on the peer-relative Value factor, by 7 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, DT or TSM?
DT 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, DT or TSM?
DT on the Momentum factor, by 11 points. Momentum carries 25% of 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, DT or TSM?
TSM is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. TSM on Risk Resilience, by 17 points. The Risk Resilience factor weights 15% of the composite; position sizing usually responds to it more usefully than the buy/avoid decision does.
Is DT more profitable than TSM?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 81.4% vs 64.2%; operating margin 13% vs 56%; ttm roe 5.7% vs 39.3%. DT leads on one measure and TSM on two measures, 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 TSM's lead over DT getting stronger or weaker?
TSM lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 8 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-04-24 and 2026-09-05. The lead has changed hands 9 times in that window, most recently on 2026-09-02, when TSM moved ahead of DT.
What would change the DT vs TSM verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: DT closes the Quality gap — currently 31 points behind, the largest single contributor to TSM's edge; DT's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend; TSM's Golden Cross Active breaks down — it is the strongest rule currently supporting the verdict; a regime shift changes factor weighting — the composite weights Quality and Value at 30% each, so a rotation toward either would move the result most.
What do the current signals say about DT and TSM?
DT: 3 bullish / 1 bearish / 2 neutral, 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 DT is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On TSM it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare DT and TSM with others
How this comparison is scored
The Algovestiq AIQ Score composites four factors — Quality (30%), Value (30%), Momentum (25%) and Risk (15%). 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.