TSM vs IVV Stock Comparison
IVV currently leads TSM in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 62 vs 58. The clearest difference is momentum, while TSM has the stronger quality profile.
What is the main difference between TSM and IVV?
IVV leads the current stock comparison as iShares Core S&P 500 ETF, with the clearest separation coming from momentum and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited vs iShares Core S&P 500 ETF
IVV leads
IVV leads by 4 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum and Risk Resilience, having only recently taken the lead back from TSM.
Fragile: 2 of 4 evidence groups support IVV, the lead recently changed hands, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited
iShares Core S&P 500 ETF
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors IVV over TSM, 62 versus 58 as of Oct 21, 2026. IVV's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum and risk resilience, while TSM holds the stronger quality profile. IVV also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 2 of 4 covered evidence groups favor IVV today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 4 points. IVV lead: Reversed — TSM led by 10 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; IVV now leads by 4.
Compare Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited and iShares Core S&P 500 ETF 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 IVV 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 64IVV +43
- Quality98 vs 77TSM +21
- Risk Resilience67 vs 88IVV +21
- Value45 vs 33TSM +12
2 of 4 evidence groups favor IVV. IVV’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 +17
New signals
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
IVV's lead widened by 3 AIQ points in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — TSM and IVV both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
IVV (iShares Core S&P 500 ETF): the stronger current systematic profile, led by momentum and risk resilience.
TSM (Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited): the counter-case, on quality, value, valuation — but at materially higher volatility, 28.8% against 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
IVVIVV on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
EvenGrowth figures are not covered for both names.
Value
TSMTSM on the peer-relative Value factor, by 12 points.
Momentum
IVVIVV on the Momentum factor, by 43 points.
Lower downside
IVVIVV on Risk Resilience, by 21 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 | IVV | 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 IVV. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | IVV | 58 vs 62 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | TSM | Value 45 vs 33 |
| Technicals | Even | Price vs 50-day -0.6% vs 0.6%; vs 200-day 7.3% vs 5.9% |
| Risk Resilience | IVV | Risk Resilience 67 vs 88 |
| 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 IVV 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 4 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- 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 IVV.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20IVV lead: Reversed — TSM led by 10 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; IVV now leads by 4.
- Today
- IVV +4
- 58 vs 62
- 7 sessions ago
- IVV +6
- 56 vs 62
- 30 sessions ago
- TSM +10
- 72 vs 62
- 90 sessions ago
- TSM +3
- 71 vs 68
The lead has not changed hands in this window.
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
No signal that the other name lacks.
4 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only IVV
- ATR Contraction - Coiling — neutral, volatility, short horizon (0.92%)
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- 52-Week High Proximity — bullish, risk, long horizon (1.2%)
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
Both carry 2 more signals that do not separate them: Golden Cross Active, MACD Bearish Crossover.
IVV 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 +0.56%, AIQ +4 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 43 points behind, the largest single contributor to IVV's edge.
- 2TSM's MACD Bearish Crossover resolves — a bearish momentum rule currently active against it.
- 3IVV's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 4 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
Split| Metric | TSM | IVV |
|---|---|---|
| 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
Split across windows| Metric | TSM | IVV |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -4.5% | -1.2% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -6% | -0.6% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 0.9% | 2.9% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 15.5% | 9.2% |
| Year to date | 39.9% | 12.8% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 41.8% | 16.3% |
Technicals
Split| Metric | TSM | IVV |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 36.7 | 56.3 |
| ADX (14) | 21.6 | 12.5 |
| Price vs 50-day | -0.6% | 0.6% |
| Price vs 200-day | 7.3% | 5.9% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 28.8% | 9% |
Risk
IVV is the more resilient| Metric | TSM | IVV |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 2.11 | 1 |
| Sharpe ratio | 1.04 | 0.9 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.66 | 1.38 |
| Max drawdown | -21.6% | -9.1% |
| Current drawdown | -12.5% | -1.3% |
| Annualized volatility | 38.9% | 12.8% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -3.8% | -1.3% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, TSM or IVV?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, IVV is the stronger of the two as of Oct 21, 2026, scoring 62 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 IVV the better buy right now?
IVV 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: the AIQ gap is narrow at 4 points. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor IVV over TSM?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. IVV leads Momentum by 43 points; TSM leads Quality by 21 points; IVV leads Risk Resilience by 21 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, TSM or IVV?
Analyst price targets imply +36.4% upside for TSM and not covered for IVV. 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 IVV?
TSM is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. TSM on the peer-relative Value factor, by 12 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, TSM or IVV?
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 IVV?
IVV on the Momentum factor, by 43 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 IVV?
IVV is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. IVV on Risk Resilience, by 21 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 IVV?
Margin data is not comparable for both names in the current snapshot.
Is IVV's lead over TSM getting stronger or weaker?
IVV lead: Reversed — TSM led by 10 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; IVV now leads by 4. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-06-21 and 2026-10-20. The lead has not changed hands in that window.
What would change the TSM vs IVV verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: TSM closes the Momentum gap — currently 43 points behind, the largest single contributor to IVV's edge; TSM's MACD Bearish Crossover resolves — a bearish momentum rule currently active against it; IVV's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 4 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 TSM and IVV?
TSM: 1 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted. IVV: 4 bullish / 1 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 IVV 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.