ICE vs TSM Stock Comparison
TSM currently leads ICE in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 66 vs 49. The clearest difference is quality.
What is the main difference between ICE 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
Intercontinental Exchange, Inc. vs Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited
TSM leads
TSM leads by 17 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Value, and the lead has widened from 14 points over 30 sessions.
Competitive: 4 of 6 evidence groups support TSM, its lead is widening, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Intercontinental Exchange, Inc.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors TSM over ICE, 66 versus 49 as of Oct 31, 2026. TSM's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and value. 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: the lead has swung materially session to session. TSM lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 14 to 17 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Intercontinental Exchange, 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 ICE 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.
- Quality63 vs 98TSM +35
- Value28 vs 45TSM +17
- Momentum49 vs 52Even
- Risk Resilience65 vs 65Even
4 of 6 evidence groups favor TSM. TSM’s edge is concentrated in quality and value.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-10-30, compared against the prior scored session 2026-10-29.
No factor moved materially.
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 3 active signals are unchanged.
No factor moved materially.
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 3 active signals are unchanged.
TSM's lead was unchanged in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — ICE 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 value.
ICE (Intercontinental Exchange, Inc.): the counter-case, on technicals.
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
TSMTSM on the peer-relative Value factor, by 17 points.
Momentum
EvenThe two are level on Momentum.
Lower downside
ICEICE carries the lower 1-month annualized volatility.
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 | ICE | TSM | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +8.7% | +45% | TSM has more room |
| Target dispersion | +32.1% | +34% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 9 | 7 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
Dividend growth
| Dividend metric | ICE | TSM |
|---|---|---|
| 5Y dividend CAGR | 9.86% | 15.29% |
| 2020 regular DPS | $1.200 | $1.360 |
| 2025 regular DPS | $1.920 | $2.769 |
| Years increased | 5 | 4 |
| No cut in window | Yes | No (1) |
| Cohort rank | #107 | not ranked |
TSM grew its split-adjusted regular dividend faster over 2020–2025 — 15.29% a year against ICE's 9.86%. ICE never reduced its regular dividend in the window; TSM did in 1 year.
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
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 | 49 vs 66 |
| Fundamentals | TSMon balance | revenue growth -1.5% vs 17.6%; EPS growth -31.7% vs 8%; TTM ROE 13.8% vs 41.2%; gross margin 73.4% vs 65.8%; operating margin 44.9% vs 57.9% — TSM takes 4 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | TSM | Value 28 vs 45 |
| Technicals | ICE | Price vs 50-day 7.4% vs -6.6%; vs 200-day 0.9% vs 10.1% |
| Risk Resilience | Even | Risk Resilience 65 vs 65 |
| Analyst expectations | TSM | Target upside 8.7% vs 45% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of ICE 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 17 points. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The leader's advantage has been widening. (supports the conclusion holding)
- 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 TSM.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jul 1 – Oct 30TSM lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 14 to 17 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- TSM +17
- 49 vs 66
- 7 sessions ago
- ICE +1
- 58 vs 57
- 30 sessions ago
- TSM +14
- 54 vs 68
- 90 sessions ago
- TSM +3
- 59 vs 62
The lead changed hands 2 times in this window, most recently on Oct 26 when TSM moved ahead of ICE.
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.
2 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted
Only ICE
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
2 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted
Only TSM
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
Both carry 2 more signals that do not separate them: Golden Cross Active, 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 +3.56%, AIQ 0 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price -5.95%, 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.
- 1ICE closes the Quality gap — currently 35 points behind, the largest single contributor to TSM's edge.
- 2ICE's MACD Bearish Crossover resolves — a bearish momentum rule currently active against it.
- 3TSM's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 2 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 | ICE | TSM |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | -1.5% | 17.6% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -31.7% | 8% |
| Gross margin | 73.4% | 65.8% |
| Operating margin | 44.9% | 57.9% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 13.8% | 41.2% |
| Debt to equity | 0.69 | 0.14 |
Performance
TSM leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | ICE | TSM |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -1.1% | 1.8% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 2.6% | -3.7% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -0.2% | 9% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -0.1% | 11.6% |
| Year to date | -3.7% | 44.6% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -1.1% | 49% |
Technicals
ICE has the stronger structure| Metric | ICE | TSM |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 51 | 41.8 |
| ADX (14) | 14.3 | 19.9 |
| Price vs 50-day | 7.4% | -6.6% |
| Price vs 200-day | 0.9% | 10.1% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 25.3% | 35.7% |
Risk
Split| Metric | ICE | TSM |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.17 | 2.14 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.06 | 1.06 |
| Sortino ratio | -0.08 | 1.68 |
| Max drawdown | -29.8% | -21.6% |
| Current drawdown | -10.9% | -9.5% |
| Annualized volatility | 25.5% | 39.2% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.3% | -4.1% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, ICE or TSM?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, TSM is the stronger of the two as of Oct 31, 2026, scoring 66 against ICE's 49. The edge comes from quality and value. 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 ICE or TSM the better buy right now?
TSM carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 31, 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 ICE?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. TSM leads Quality by 35 points; TSM leads Value by 17 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, ICE or TSM?
Analyst price targets imply +8.7% upside for ICE and +45% 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, ICE or TSM?
TSM is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. TSM on the peer-relative Value factor, by 17 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, ICE 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, ICE or TSM?
The two are level on Momentum. 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, ICE or TSM?
ICE is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. ICE carries the lower 1-month annualized volatility. Risk Resilience is a weighted factor in the composite; position sizing usually responds to it more usefully than the buy/avoid decision does.
Is ICE more profitable than TSM?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 73.4% vs 65.8%; operating margin 44.9% vs 57.9%; ttm roe 13.8% vs 41.2%. ICE 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 ICE getting stronger or weaker?
TSM lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 14 to 17 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-07-01 and 2026-10-30. The lead has changed hands 2 times in that window, most recently on 2026-10-26, when TSM moved ahead of ICE.
What would change the ICE vs TSM verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: ICE closes the Quality gap — currently 35 points behind, the largest single contributor to TSM's edge; ICE's MACD Bearish Crossover resolves — a bearish momentum rule currently active against it; TSM's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 2 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 ICE and TSM?
ICE: 2 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted. TSM: 2 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 ICE is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On TSM it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare ICE 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.