MGNI vs TSM Stock Comparison
TSM currently leads MGNI in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 66 vs 43. The clearest difference is risk resilience.
What is the main difference between MGNI and TSM?
TSM leads the current stock comparison as Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited, with the clearest separation coming from risk resilience and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Magnite, Inc. vs Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited
TSM leads
TSM leads by 23 AIQ points, primarily on Risk Resilience and Quality, and the lead has widened from 18 points over 30 sessions.
Stable: 5 of 6 evidence groups support TSM, its lead is widening, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Magnite, Inc.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors TSM over MGNI, 66 versus 43 as of Oct 31, 2026. TSM's advantage is driven primarily by stronger risk resilience and quality. TSM also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 5 of 6 covered evidence groups favor TSM today, and the comparison is rated Stable on stability: the leader is throwing conflicting signals. TSM lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 18 to 23 points over 30 sessions. TSM leads on all four AIQ factor dimensions. Value is itself one of those four, so a sweep is not explained by valuation alone — it deserves additional scrutiny for unmodeled catalysts, expectations or event risk.
Compare Magnite, 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 MGNI 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.
- Risk Resilience34 vs 65TSM +31
- Quality71 vs 98TSM +27
- Momentum30 vs 52TSM +22
- Value29 vs 45TSM +16
5 of 6 evidence groups favor TSM. TSM’s edge is concentrated in risk resilience and quality.
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 6 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 — MGNI 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 risk resilience and quality.
MGNI (Magnite, 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 16 points.
Momentum
TSMTSM on the Momentum factor, by 22 points.
Lower downside
TSMTSM on Risk Resilience, by 31 points.
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 | MGNI | TSM | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +18.4% | +45% | TSM has more room |
| Target dispersion | +47.2% | +34% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 6 | 7 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
5 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 | 43 vs 66 |
| Fundamentals | TSM | revenue growth 17.3% vs 17.6%; EPS growth 3.7% vs 8%; TTM ROE 18.6% vs 41.2%; gross margin 64.8% vs 65.8%; operating margin 15.6% vs 57.9% |
| Valuation | TSM | Value 29 vs 45 |
| Technicals | MGNI | Price vs 50-day -10.6% vs -6.6%; vs 200-day 24.1% vs 10.1% |
| Risk Resilience | TSM | Risk Resilience 34 vs 65 |
| Analyst expectations | TSM | Target upside 18.4% vs 45% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of MGNI 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 23 points. (supports the conclusion holding)
- 5 of 6 covered evidence groups point the same way. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The leader's advantage has been widening. (supports the conclusion holding)
- 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 18 to 23 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- TSM +23
- 43 vs 66
- 7 sessions ago
- TSM +14
- 43 vs 57
- 30 sessions ago
- TSM +18
- 50 vs 68
- 90 sessions ago
- TSM +14
- 48 vs 62
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.
2 bullish / 2 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
Only MGNI
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (4.26%)
- Keltner Channel Breakdown — bearish, volatility, short horizon
- RSI Oversold - Potential Bounce — bullish, momentum, short 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 -4.19%, 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.
- 1MGNI closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 31 points behind, the largest single contributor to TSM's edge.
- 2MGNI's Keltner Channel Breakdown resolves — a bearish volatility 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 | MGNI | TSM |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 17.3% | 17.6% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 3.7% | 8% |
| Gross margin | 64.8% | 65.8% |
| Operating margin | 15.6% | 57.9% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 18.6% | 41.2% |
| Debt to equity | 0.45 | 0.14 |
Performance
TSM leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | MGNI | TSM |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -7.8% | 1.8% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -13.8% | -3.7% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 12.3% | 9% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 68.5% | 11.6% |
| Year to date | 34.1% | 44.6% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 9.2% | 49% |
Technicals
MGNI has the stronger structure| Metric | MGNI | TSM |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 22.4 | 41.8 |
| ADX (14) | 21.8 | 19.9 |
| Price vs 50-day | -10.6% | -6.6% |
| Price vs 200-day | 24.1% | 10.1% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 37.2% | 35.7% |
Risk
TSM is the more resilient| Metric | MGNI | TSM |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1.07 | 2.14 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.38 | 1.06 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.55 | 1.68 |
| Max drawdown | -43.7% | -21.6% |
| Current drawdown | -15.2% | -9.5% |
| Annualized volatility | 58% | 39.2% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -5.5% | -4.1% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, MGNI or TSM?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, TSM is the stronger of the two as of Oct 31, 2026, scoring 66 against MGNI's 43. The edge comes from risk resilience and quality. 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 MGNI or TSM the better buy right now?
TSM carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 31, 2026, and the comparison is rated Stable — 5 of 6 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 MGNI?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. TSM leads Risk Resilience by 31 points; TSM leads Quality by 27 points; TSM leads Momentum by 22 points. TSM leads on all four AIQ factor dimensions. Value is itself one of those four, so the sweep is not explained by MGNI simply being cheaper — it warrants extra scrutiny for unmodeled catalysts, forward expectations or event risk the factors do not capture.
Which has more analyst upside, MGNI or TSM?
Analyst price targets imply +18.4% upside for MGNI 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, MGNI or TSM?
TSM is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. TSM on the peer-relative Value factor, by 16 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, MGNI 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, MGNI or TSM?
TSM on the Momentum factor, by 22 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, MGNI or TSM?
TSM is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. TSM on Risk Resilience, by 31 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 MGNI more profitable than TSM?
TSM leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 64.8% vs 65.8%; operating margin 15.6% vs 57.9%; ttm roe 18.6% vs 41.2%.
Is TSM's lead over MGNI getting stronger or weaker?
TSM lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 18 to 23 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-07-01 and 2026-10-30. The lead has not changed hands in that window.
What would change the MGNI vs TSM verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: MGNI closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 31 points behind, the largest single contributor to TSM's edge; MGNI's Keltner Channel Breakdown resolves — a bearish volatility 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 MGNI and TSM?
MGNI: 2 bullish / 2 bearish / 2 neutral, 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 MGNI is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On TSM it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare MGNI 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.