FIS vs TSM Stock Comparison
FIS currently leads TSM in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 60 vs 58. The clearest difference is momentum, while TSM has the stronger quality profile.
What is the main difference between FIS and TSM?
FIS leads the current stock comparison as Fidelity National Information Services, Inc., with the clearest separation coming from momentum and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Fidelity National Information Services, Inc. vs Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited
FIS leads
FIS leads by 2 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum and Value, having only recently taken the lead back from TSM. Wall Street currently favors TSM on target upside.
Fragile: 1 of 6 evidence groups support FIS, the lead recently changed hands, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Fidelity National Information Services, Inc.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors FIS over TSM, 60 versus 58 as of Oct 21, 2026. FIS's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum and value, while TSM holds the stronger quality profile. FIS also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors TSM. 1 of 6 covered evidence groups favor FIS today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 2 points. FIS lead: Reversed — TSM led by 22 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; FIS now leads by 2.
Compare Fidelity National Information Services, 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 FIS 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.
- Quality49 vs 98TSM +49
- Momentum60 vs 21FIS +39
- Value75 vs 45FIS +30
- Risk Resilience49 vs 67TSM +18
1 of 6 evidence groups favor FIS. FIS’s edge is concentrated in momentum and value; 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 5 active signals are unchanged.
Largest factor move: Momentum +3
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 2 active signals are unchanged.
FIS's lead narrowed by 1 AIQ point in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — FIS and TSM both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
FIS (Fidelity National Information Services, Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by momentum and value.
TSM (Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited): the counter-case, on quality, risk resilience, fundamentals.
The AIQ Score and Wall Street therefore point in different directions on this pair.
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
FISFIS on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
TSMTSM on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
FISFIS on the peer-relative Value factor, by 30 points.
Momentum
FISFIS on the Momentum factor, by 39 points.
Lower downside
TSMTSM on Risk Resilience, by 18 points.
Analyst upside
TSMTSM on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors FIS, analyst targets favor TSM. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | FIS | TSM | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +29.7% | +36.4% | TSM has more room |
| Target dispersion | +55% | +34% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 14 | 7 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
The two are measuring different things. The AIQ Score reads current fundamentals, valuation, trend and risk; analyst targets price forward expectations. A divergence of this kind is either a contrarian opportunity or a sign the model is missing something already priced in — it is worth resolving before acting on either.
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
Dividend growth
| Dividend metric | FIS | TSM |
|---|---|---|
| 5Y dividend CAGR | 2.71% | 15.29% |
| 2020 regular DPS | $1.400 | $1.360 |
| 2025 regular DPS | $1.600 | $2.769 |
| Years increased | 4 | 4 |
| No cut in window | No (1) | No (1) |
| Cohort rank | not ranked | not ranked |
TSM grew its split-adjusted regular dividend faster over 2020–2025 — 15.29% a year against FIS's 2.71%.
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
1 of 6 covered evidence groups favor FIS. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | Even | 60 vs 58 |
| Fundamentals | TSM | revenue growth 2.5% vs 17.6%; EPS growth -90.2% vs 8%; TTM ROE 22.6% vs 41.2%; gross margin 37.1% vs 65.8%; operating margin 16.4% vs 57.9% |
| Valuation | FIS | Value 75 vs 45 |
| Technicals | TSM | Price vs 50-day -3.5% vs -0.6%; vs 200-day -18.8% vs 7.3% |
| Risk Resilience | TSM | Risk Resilience 49 vs 67 |
| Analyst expectations | TSM | Target upside 29.7% vs 36.4% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of FIS 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 narrow at 2 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Only 1 of 6 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 FIS.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20FIS lead: Reversed — TSM led by 22 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; FIS now leads by 2.
- Today
- FIS +2
- 60 vs 58
- 7 sessions ago
- Level
- 56 vs 56
- 30 sessions ago
- TSM +22
- 50 vs 72
- 90 sessions ago
- TSM +22
- 49 vs 71
The lead changed hands 7 times in this window, most recently on Oct 19 when FIS 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 / 3 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only FIS
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (18.91%)
- RSI Overbought — bearish, momentum, short horizon
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
1 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted
Only TSM
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (9.68%)
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
FIS 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 -0.03%, 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 39 points behind, the largest single contributor to FIS's edge.
- 2TSM's MACD Bearish Crossover resolves — a bearish momentum rule currently active against it.
- 3FIS's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 3 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 | FIS | TSM |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 2.5% | 17.6% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -90.2% | 8% |
| Gross margin | 37.1% | 65.8% |
| Operating margin | 16.4% | 57.9% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 22.6% | 41.2% |
| Debt to equity | 1.32 | 0.14 |
Performance
TSM leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | FIS | TSM |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 3.5% | -4.5% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 4.2% | -6% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -10.1% | 0.9% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -23.6% | 15.5% |
| Year to date | -45.2% | 39.9% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -44.6% | 41.8% |
Technicals
TSM has the stronger structure| Metric | FIS | TSM |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 72.1 | 36.7 |
| ADX (14) | 21 | 21.6 |
| Price vs 50-day | -3.5% | -0.6% |
| Price vs 200-day | -18.8% | 7.3% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 27.4% | 28.8% |
Risk
TSM is the more resilient| Metric | FIS | TSM |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.31 | 2.11 |
| Sharpe ratio | -1.76 | 1.04 |
| Sortino ratio | -2.37 | 1.66 |
| Max drawdown | -52.3% | -21.6% |
| Current drawdown | -46.4% | -12.5% |
| Annualized volatility | 33.6% | 38.9% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -3.5% | -3.8% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, FIS or TSM?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, FIS is the stronger of the two as of Oct 21, 2026, scoring 60 against TSM's 58. The edge comes from momentum and value. 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 FIS or TSM the better buy right now?
FIS carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 21, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 1 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: the AIQ gap is narrow at 2 points. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor FIS over TSM?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. TSM leads Quality by 49 points; FIS leads Momentum by 39 points; FIS leads Value by 30 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, FIS or TSM?
Analyst price targets imply +29.7% upside for FIS and +36.4% for TSM, so the Street currently favors TSM. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors FIS. The two are measuring different things: the model reads current fundamentals, valuation, trend and risk; the Street is pricing forward expectations. A divergence of this kind is either a contrarian opportunity or a sign the model is missing something the analysts have already priced — it is the single most useful row on this page to investigate. Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions, and dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
Which is better value, FIS or TSM?
FIS is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. FIS on the peer-relative Value factor, by 30 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, FIS or TSM?
TSM 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, FIS or TSM?
FIS on the Momentum factor, by 39 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, FIS or TSM?
TSM is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. TSM on Risk Resilience, by 18 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 FIS more profitable than TSM?
TSM leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 37.1% vs 65.8%; operating margin 16.4% vs 57.9%; ttm roe 22.6% vs 41.2%.
Is FIS's lead over TSM getting stronger or weaker?
FIS lead: Reversed — TSM led by 22 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; FIS now leads by 2. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-06-21 and 2026-10-20. The lead has changed hands 7 times in that window, most recently on 2026-10-19, when FIS moved ahead of TSM.
What would change the FIS 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 39 points behind, the largest single contributor to FIS's edge; TSM's MACD Bearish Crossover resolves — a bearish momentum rule currently active against it; FIS's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 3 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 FIS and TSM?
FIS: 1 bullish / 3 bearish / 1 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 FIS is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon). On TSM it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare FIS 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.