LAC vs TSM Stock Comparison
Compare LAC and TSM across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between LAC 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
Lithium Americas Corp. vs Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited
TSM leads
TSM leads by 40 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Risk Resilience, and the lead has widened from 31 points over 30 sessions. Wall Street currently favors LAC on target upside.
Stable: 4 of 5 evidence groups support TSM, its lead is widening, and its signal state is cleanly positive.
Lithium Americas Corp.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors TSM over LAC, 70 versus 30 as of Sep 11, 2026. TSM's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and risk resilience. TSM also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors LAC. 4 of 5 covered evidence groups favor TSM today, and the comparison is rated Stable on stability. TSM lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 31 to 40 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Lithium Americas Corp. and Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited across the Algovestiq AIQ Score, valuation, quality, momentum, risk, technicals and analyst expectations.
Performance over time
Price-return comparison using available daily close history.
Total return comparison
Growth of $10,000
Based on available close-price history. Distribution reinvestment is not added unless already reflected in the source series.
Compare LAC 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.
- Quality18 vs 96TSM +78
- Risk Resilience33 vs 68TSM +35
- Momentum44 vs 74TSM +30
4 of 5 evidence groups favor TSM. TSM’s edge is concentrated in quality and risk resilience.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-09-10, compared against the prior scored session 2026-09-09.
Largest factor move: Momentum -19
New signals
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
Largest factor move: Momentum -8
No new signals fired.
TSM's lead widened by 5 AIQ points in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — LAC 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.
LAC (Lithium Americas Corp.): the counter-case, on analyst expectations — but at materially higher volatility, 59.7% against 27.3%.
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
EvenThe two are level on Value.
Momentum
TSMTSM on the Momentum factor, by 30 points.
Lower downside
TSMTSM on Risk Resilience, by 35 points.
Analyst upside
LACLAC 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 LAC. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | LAC | TSM | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +46% | +32.2% | LAC has more room |
| Target dispersion | +11.8% | +38.4% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Hold | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 2 | 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 5 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 | 30 vs 70 |
| Fundamentals | TSM | EPS growth 6.1% vs 22.1%; TTM ROE -9% vs 39.3% |
| Valuation | Not covered | Not covered |
| Technicals | TSM | Price vs 50-day -7.2% vs 3.4%; vs 200-day -31.8% vs 14.1% |
| Risk Resilience | TSM | Risk Resilience 33 vs 68 |
| Analyst expectations | LAC | Target upside 46% vs 32.2% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of LAC and TSM and are excluded from the count.
AIQ Decision Stability
The conclusion rests on a wide gap and broad agreement. It is unlikely to turn on a single session.
- The AIQ gap is wide at 40 points. (supports the conclusion holding)
- 4 of 5 covered evidence groups point the same way. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The leader's advantage has been widening. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The leader's signal state is cleanly positive. (supports the conclusion holding)
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
119 daily snapshots · May 4 – Sep 10TSM lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 31 to 40 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- TSM +40
- 30 vs 70
- 7 sessions ago
- TSM +40
- 28 vs 68
- 30 sessions ago
- TSM +31
- 32 vs 63
- 90 sessions ago
- TSM +36
- 25 vs 61
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 / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (41.26%)
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (5.44%)
4 bullish / 0 bearish
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (11.73%)
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
LAC is conflicted, so the timing case there is weaker than the score alone suggests.
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 down over the latest session (price -3.64%, AIQ -7 points).
Price is up while the AIQ Score moved down 2 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price +1.22%, AIQ -2 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.
- 1LAC closes the Quality gap — currently 78 points behind, the largest single contributor to TSM's edge.
- 2LAC's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3TSM's Golden Cross Active breaks down — it is the strongest rule currently supporting the verdict.
- 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 | LAC | TSM |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 0% | 12% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 6.1% | 22.1% |
| Gross margin | 0% | 64.2% |
| Operating margin | 0% | 56% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | -9% | 39.3% |
| Debt to equity | 0.82 | 0.15 |
Performance
TSM leads 6 of 6 windows| Metric | LAC | TSM |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 0.3% | 3% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -7.4% | -0.3% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -27.2% | 4.7% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -35.6% | 20.7% |
| Year to date | -30.7% | 40.9% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 1.7% | 73.2% |
Technicals
TSM has the stronger structure| Metric | LAC | TSM |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 52.2 | 57.7 |
| ADX (14) | 12.3 | 9.6 |
| Price vs 50-day | -7.2% | 3.4% |
| Price vs 200-day | -31.8% | 14.1% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 59.7% | 27.3% |
Risk
TSM is the more resilient| Metric | LAC | TSM |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 2.22 | 2.17 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.53 | 1.43 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.39 | 2.31 |
| Max drawdown | -73% | -21.6% |
| Current drawdown | -70% | -10.4% |
| Annualized volatility | 132% | 40.4% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -7.2% | -4.1% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, LAC or TSM?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, TSM is the stronger of the two as of Sep 11, 2026, scoring 70 against LAC's 30. The edge comes from quality and risk resilience. 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 LAC or TSM the better buy right now?
TSM carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 11, 2026, and the comparison is rated Stable — 4 of 5 covered evidence groups agree. A Stable rating means the gap is wide and the evidence is broad, so the conclusion is unlikely to turn on a single session.
Why does the AIQ Score favor TSM over LAC?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. TSM leads Quality by 78 points; TSM leads Risk Resilience by 35 points; TSM leads Momentum by 30 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, LAC or TSM?
Analyst price targets imply +46% upside for LAC and +32.2% for TSM, so the Street currently favors LAC. 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, LAC or TSM?
Neither name separates on the peer-relative Value factor. The two are level on Value. 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, LAC 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, LAC or TSM?
TSM on the Momentum factor, by 30 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, LAC or TSM?
TSM is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. TSM on Risk Resilience, by 35 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 LAC more profitable than TSM?
TSM leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 0% vs 64.2%; operating margin 0% vs 56%; ttm roe -9% vs 39.3%.
Is TSM's lead over LAC getting stronger or weaker?
TSM lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 31 to 40 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 119 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-05-04 and 2026-09-10. The lead has not changed hands in that window.
What would change the LAC vs TSM verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: LAC closes the Quality gap — currently 78 points behind, the largest single contributor to TSM's edge; LAC's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it; TSM's Golden Cross Active breaks down — it is the strongest rule currently supporting the verdict; 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 LAC and TSM?
LAC: 1 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. TSM: 4 bullish / 0 bearish. 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 LAC is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon). On TSM it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare LAC 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.