TSM vs IWF Stock Comparison
TSM currently leads IWF in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 57 vs 45. The clearest difference is quality, while IWF has the stronger risk resilience profile.
What is the main difference between TSM and IWF?
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
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited vs iShares Russell 1000 Growth ETF
TSM leads
TSM leads by 12 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Value, and the lead has widened from 2 points over 30 sessions.
Fragile: 2 of 4 evidence groups support TSM, its lead is widening, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited
iShares Russell 1000 Growth ETF
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors TSM over IWF, 57 versus 45 as of Nov 7, 2026. TSM's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and value, while IWF holds the stronger risk resilience profile. TSM also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 2 of 4 covered evidence groups favor TSM today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: only 2 of 4 covered evidence groups agree. TSM lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 2 to 12 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited and iShares Russell 1000 Growth 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 IWF 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.
- Quality98 vs 70TSM +28
- Value45 vs 30TSM +15
- Risk Resilience53 vs 62IWF +9
- Momentum23 vs 23Even
2 of 4 evidence groups favor TSM. TSM’s edge is concentrated in quality and value; IWF keeps a meaningful risk resilience edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-11-06, compared against the prior scored session 2026-11-05.
Largest factor move: Momentum +5
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 4 active signals are unchanged.
Largest factor move: Value +2, not enough on its own to move the overall score.
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 5 active signals are unchanged.
TSM's lead widened by 2 AIQ points in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — TSM and IWF 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.
IWF (iShares Russell 1000 Growth ETF): the counter-case, on risk resilience, 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
EvenGrowth figures are not covered for both names.
Value
TSMTSM on the peer-relative Value factor, by 15 points.
Momentum
EvenThe two are level on Momentum.
Lower downside
IWFIWF on Risk Resilience, by 9 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 | IWF | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +56.9% | — | 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 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 | 57 vs 45 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | TSM | Value 45 vs 30 |
| Technicals | IWF | Price vs 50-day -13% vs -9.1%; vs 200-day -5.9% vs -6.1% |
| Risk Resilience | IWF | Risk Resilience 53 vs 62 |
| 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 IWF 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 wide at 12 points. (supports the conclusion holding)
- Only 2 of 4 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The leader's advantage has been widening. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The leader is throwing conflicting signals. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Signal direction runs against the verdict: the leader is net-bearish while the laggard is net-bullish. (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 8 – Nov 6TSM lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 2 to 12 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- TSM +12
- 57 vs 45
- 7 sessions ago
- TSM +15
- 60 vs 45
- 30 sessions ago
- TSM +2
- 56 vs 54
- 90 sessions ago
- TSM +12
- 68 vs 56
The lead changed hands once in this window, most recently on Jul 14 when IWF 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 / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only TSM
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (4.49%)
3 bullish / 2 bearish, conflicted
Only IWF
- BB Lower Band Breach — bullish, volatility, short horizon
- RSI Oversold - Potential Bounce — bullish, momentum, short horizon
Both carry 3 more signals that do not separate them: Golden Cross Active, Keltner Channel Breakdown, 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.
Price and the AIQ Score both moved up over the latest session (price +6.33%, AIQ +2 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +1.26%, 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.
- 1IWF closes the Quality gap — currently 28 points behind, the largest single contributor to TSM's edge.
- 2IWF's Keltner Channel Breakdown resolves — a bearish volatility rule currently active against it.
- 3TSM's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 2 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 | IWF |
|---|---|---|
| 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
TSM leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | TSM | IWF |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -7.6% | -5% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -17.2% | -9.1% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -6.8% | -10% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -6.2% | -9.5% |
| Year to date | 23.5% | -5.6% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 27.9% | -6.9% |
Technicals
IWF has the stronger structure| Metric | TSM | IWF |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 37.5 | 29.2 |
| ADX (14) | 28.7 | 34.1 |
| Price vs 50-day | -13% | -9.1% |
| Price vs 200-day | -5.9% | -6.1% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 58.2% | 25.3% |
Risk
IWF is the more resilient| Metric | TSM | IWF |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 2.17 | 1.33 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.74 | -0.39 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.09 | -0.54 |
| Max drawdown | -27.3% | -14.7% |
| Current drawdown | -22.7% | -13.5% |
| Annualized volatility | 41.5% | 19.3% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -4.2% | -1.9% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, TSM or IWF?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, TSM is the stronger of the two as of Nov 7, 2026, scoring 57 against IWF's 45. The edge comes from quality and value. IWF is not without a case — it holds the better risk resilience 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 IWF the better buy right now?
TSM carries the stronger systematic profile as of Nov 7, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 2 of 4 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: only 2 of 4 covered evidence groups agree. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor TSM over IWF?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. TSM leads Quality by 28 points; TSM leads Value by 15 points; IWF leads Risk Resilience by 9 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, TSM or IWF?
Analyst price targets imply +56.9% upside for TSM and not covered for IWF. 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 IWF?
TSM is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. TSM on the peer-relative Value factor, by 15 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 IWF?
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 IWF?
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, TSM or IWF?
IWF is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. IWF on Risk Resilience, by 9 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 IWF?
Margin data is not comparable for both names in the current snapshot.
Is TSM's lead over IWF getting stronger or weaker?
TSM lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 2 to 12 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-07-08 and 2026-11-06. The lead has changed hands once in that window, most recently on 2026-07-14, when IWF moved ahead of TSM.
What would change the TSM vs IWF verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: IWF closes the Quality gap — currently 28 points behind, the largest single contributor to TSM's edge; IWF's Keltner Channel Breakdown resolves — a bearish volatility rule currently active against it; TSM's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 2 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 IWF?
TSM: 1 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. IWF: 3 bullish / 2 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 TSM is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On IWF 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.