FN vs TSM Stock Comparison
TSM currently leads FN in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 58 vs 46. The clearest difference is quality, while FN has the stronger value profile.
What is the main difference between FN 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
Fabrinet vs Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited
TSM leads
TSM leads by 12 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Risk Resilience. Wall Street currently favors FN on target upside.
Competitive: 4 of 6 evidence groups support TSM, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Fabrinet
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors TSM over FN, 58 versus 46 as of Oct 22, 2026. TSM's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and risk resilience, while FN holds the stronger value profile. TSM also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors FN. 4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor TSM today, and the comparison is rated Competitive on stability: the leader is throwing conflicting signals. TSM lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 12 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Fabrinet 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 FN 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.
- Quality56 vs 98TSM +42
- Value59 vs 45FN +14
- Risk Resilience54 vs 67TSM +13
- Momentum13 vs 21TSM +8
4 of 6 evidence groups favor TSM. TSM’s edge is concentrated in quality and risk resilience; FN keeps a meaningful value 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 -1, not enough on its own to move the overall score.
New signals
- 52-Week Low Proximity — bearish, risk, long horizon (0.0%)
Largest factor move: Momentum +3
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 2 active signals are unchanged.
TSM's lead widened by 1 AIQ point in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — FN 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.
FN (Fabrinet): the counter-case, on value, valuation, analyst expectations — but at materially higher volatility, 66.9% against 28.8%.
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
TSMTSM on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
TSMTSM on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
FNFN on the peer-relative Value factor, by 14 points.
Momentum
TSMTSM on the Momentum factor, by 8 points.
Lower downside
TSMTSM on Risk Resilience, by 13 points.
Analyst upside
FNFN on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors TSM, analyst targets favor FN. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | FN | TSM | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +102.4% | +36.4% | FN has more room |
| Target dispersion | +5.1% | +34% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 1 | 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.
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 | 46 vs 58 |
| Fundamentals | TSMon balance | revenue growth 8.4% vs 17.6%; EPS growth 11.5% vs 8%; TTM ROE 21% vs 41.2%; gross margin 12% vs 65.8%; operating margin 10% vs 57.9% — TSM takes 4 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | FN | Value 59 vs 45 |
| Technicals | TSM | Price vs 50-day -18.1% vs -0.6%; vs 200-day -31.6% vs 7.3% |
| Risk Resilience | TSM | Risk Resilience 54 vs 67 |
| Analyst expectations | FN | Target upside 102.4% vs 36.4% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of FN 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 wide at 12 points. (supports the conclusion holding)
- 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 TSM.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20TSM lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 12 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- TSM +12
- 46 vs 58
- 7 sessions ago
- TSM +9
- 47 vs 56
- 30 sessions ago
- TSM +14
- 58 vs 72
- 90 sessions ago
- TSM +8
- 63 vs 71
The lead changed hands 2 times in this window, most recently on Jul 22 when TSM moved ahead of FN.
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.
0 bullish / 5 bearish / 1 neutral
Only FN
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (21.87%)
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (7.32%)
- Keltner Channel Breakdown — bearish, volatility, short horizon
- 52-Week Low Proximity — bearish, risk, long horizon (0.0%)
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
1 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted
Only TSM
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (9.68%)
Both carry 1 more signal that do not separate them: MACD Bearish Crossover.
TSM 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 +0.16%, 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.
- 1FN closes the Quality gap — currently 42 points behind, the largest single contributor to TSM's edge.
- 2FN's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3TSM's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 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
TSM leads on balance| Metric | FN | TSM |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 8.4% | 17.6% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 11.5% | 8% |
| Gross margin | 12% | 65.8% |
| Operating margin | 10% | 57.9% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 21% | 41.2% |
| Debt to equity | 0 | 0.14 |
Performance
TSM leads 6 of 6 windows| Metric | FN | TSM |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -16.9% | -4.5% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -12% | -6% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -30.8% | 0.9% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -47.5% | 15.5% |
| Year to date | -17.5% | 39.9% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -11% | 41.8% |
Technicals
TSM has the stronger structure| Metric | FN | TSM |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 35.4 | 36.7 |
| ADX (14) | 21.4 | 21.6 |
| Price vs 50-day | -18.1% | -0.6% |
| Price vs 200-day | -31.6% | 7.3% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 66.9% | 28.8% |
Risk
TSM is the more resilient| Metric | FN | TSM |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 2.98 | 2.11 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.14 | 1.04 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.21 | 1.66 |
| Max drawdown | -52.4% | -21.6% |
| Current drawdown | -52.4% | -12.5% |
| Annualized volatility | 76% | 38.9% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -7.9% | -3.8% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, FN or TSM?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, TSM is the stronger of the two as of Oct 22, 2026, scoring 58 against FN's 46. The edge comes from quality and risk resilience. FN is not without a case — it holds the better value 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 FN or TSM the better buy right now?
TSM carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 22, 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 FN?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. TSM leads Quality by 42 points; FN leads Value by 14 points; TSM leads Risk Resilience by 13 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, FN or TSM?
Analyst price targets imply +102.4% upside for FN and +36.4% for TSM, so the Street currently favors FN. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors TSM. 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, FN or TSM?
FN is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. FN on the peer-relative Value factor, by 14 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, FN 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, FN or TSM?
TSM on the Momentum factor, by 8 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, FN or TSM?
TSM is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. TSM on Risk Resilience, by 13 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 FN more profitable than TSM?
TSM leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 12% vs 65.8%; operating margin 10% vs 57.9%; ttm roe 21% vs 41.2%.
Is TSM's lead over FN getting stronger or weaker?
TSM lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 12 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-06-21 and 2026-10-20. The lead has changed hands 2 times in that window, most recently on 2026-07-22, when TSM moved ahead of FN.
What would change the FN vs TSM verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: FN closes the Quality gap — currently 42 points behind, the largest single contributor to TSM's edge; FN's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it; TSM's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 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 FN and TSM?
FN: 0 bullish / 5 bearish / 1 neutral. 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 FN is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon). On TSM it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare FN 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.