IWMY vs TSM Stock Comparison
TSM currently leads IWMY in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 58 vs 47. The clearest difference is quality, while IWMY has the stronger value profile.
What is the main difference between IWMY 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
R2000 Weekly Distribution ETF vs Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited
TSM leads
TSM leads by 11 AIQ points, primarily on Quality, but the lead has narrowed from 26 points over 30 sessions.
Fragile: 2 of 4 evidence groups support TSM, its lead is narrowing, and its current signal state is conflicted.
R2000 Weekly Distribution ETF
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors TSM over IWMY, 58 versus 47 as of Oct 21, 2026. TSM's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality, while IWMY holds the stronger value profile. TSM also shows the stronger 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: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 26 to 11 points over 30 sessions.
Compare R2000 Weekly Distribution ETF 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 IWMY 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.
- Quality34 vs 98TSM +64
- Value59 vs 45IWMY +14
- Risk Resilience77 vs 67IWMY +10
- Momentum29 vs 21IWMY +8
2 of 4 evidence groups favor TSM. TSM’s edge is concentrated in quality; IWMY 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 +4
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 6 active signals are unchanged.
Largest factor move: Momentum +3
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 2 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 — IWMY 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.
IWMY (R2000 Weekly Distribution ETF): the counter-case, on value, risk resilience, momentum.
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
IWMYIWMY on the peer-relative Value factor, by 14 points.
Momentum
IWMYIWMY on the Momentum factor, by 8 points.
Lower downside
IWMYIWMY on Risk Resilience, by 10 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 | IWMY | TSM | 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 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 | 47 vs 58 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | IWMY | Value 59 vs 45 |
| Technicals | TSM | Price vs 50-day -6.5% vs -0.6%; vs 200-day -12.6% vs 7.3% |
| Risk Resilience | IWMY | Risk Resilience 77 vs 67 |
| 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 IWMY 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 moderate at 11 points.
- Only 2 of 4 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The leader's advantage has been narrowing. (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 TSM.
How the comparison changed
99 daily snapshots · Jun 22 – Oct 20TSM lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 26 to 11 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- TSM +11
- 47 vs 58
- 7 sessions ago
- TSM +10
- 46 vs 56
- 30 sessions ago
- TSM +26
- 46 vs 72
- 90 sessions ago
- TSM +13
- 50 vs 63
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.
0 bullish / 4 bearish / 2 neutral
Only IWMY
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (6.71%)
- ATR Contraction - Coiling — neutral, volatility, short horizon (1.28%)
- 52-Week Low Proximity — bearish, risk, long horizon (0.1%)
- 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.
Price and the AIQ Score both moved up over the latest session (price +0.24%, AIQ +1 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.
- 1IWMY closes the Quality gap — currently 64 points behind, the largest single contributor to TSM's edge.
- 2IWMY'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.
- 4The narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 15 points over 30 sessions, and a further 11-point move would eliminate TSM's advantage entirely.
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 | IWMY | TSM |
|---|---|---|
| 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 5 of 6 windows| Metric | IWMY | TSM |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -1.2% | -4.5% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -6% | -6% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -13.1% | 0.9% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -14.5% | 15.5% |
| Year to date | -15.5% | 39.9% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -24.4% | 41.8% |
Technicals
TSM has the stronger structure| Metric | IWMY | TSM |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 35.1 | 36.7 |
| ADX (14) | 53.6 | 21.6 |
| Price vs 50-day | -6.5% | -0.6% |
| Price vs 200-day | -12.6% | 7.3% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 13.8% | 28.8% |
Risk
IWMY is the more resilient| Metric | IWMY | TSM |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1.07 | 2.11 |
| Sharpe ratio | -1.79 | 1.04 |
| Sortino ratio | -2.58 | 1.66 |
| Max drawdown | -26.1% | -21.6% |
| Current drawdown | -24.7% | -12.5% |
| Annualized volatility | 16.8% | 38.9% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -1.9% | -3.8% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, IWMY or TSM?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, TSM is the stronger of the two as of Oct 21, 2026, scoring 58 against IWMY's 47. The edge comes from quality. IWMY 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 IWMY or TSM the better buy right now?
TSM 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: only 2 of 4 covered evidence groups agree. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor TSM over IWMY?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. TSM leads Quality by 64 points; IWMY leads Value by 14 points; IWMY leads Risk Resilience by 10 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, IWMY or TSM?
Analyst price targets imply not covered upside for IWMY and +36.4% for 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, IWMY or TSM?
IWMY is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. IWMY 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, IWMY or TSM?
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, IWMY or TSM?
IWMY 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, IWMY or TSM?
IWMY is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. IWMY on Risk Resilience, by 10 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 IWMY more profitable than TSM?
Margin data is not comparable for both names in the current snapshot.
Is TSM's lead over IWMY getting stronger or weaker?
TSM lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 26 to 11 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 99 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-06-22 and 2026-10-20. The lead has not changed hands in that window.
What would change the IWMY vs TSM verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: IWMY closes the Quality gap — currently 64 points behind, the largest single contributor to TSM's edge; IWMY'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; the narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 15 points over 30 sessions, and a further 11-point move would eliminate TSM's advantage entirely.
What do the current signals say about IWMY and TSM?
IWMY: 0 bullish / 4 bearish / 2 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 IWMY is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon). On TSM 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.