OWL vs TSM Stock Comparison
TSM currently leads OWL in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 60 vs 45. The clearest difference is quality, while OWL has the stronger momentum profile.
What is the main difference between OWL 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
Blue Owl Capital Inc. vs Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited
TSM leads
TSM leads by 15 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Risk Resilience, but the lead has narrowed from 32 points over 30 sessions.
Competitive: 5 of 6 evidence groups support TSM, its lead is narrowing, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Blue Owl Capital Inc.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors TSM over OWL, 60 versus 45 as of Oct 31, 2026. TSM's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and risk resilience, while OWL holds the stronger momentum profile. TSM also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 5 of 6 covered evidence groups favor TSM today, and the comparison is rated Competitive on stability: the leader's advantage has been narrowing. TSM lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 32 to 15 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Blue Owl Capital 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 OWL 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.
- Quality31 vs 98TSM +67
- Momentum75 vs 30OWL +45
- Risk Resilience37 vs 62TSM +25
- Value39 vs 45TSM +6
5 of 6 evidence groups favor TSM. TSM’s edge is concentrated in quality and risk resilience; OWL keeps a meaningful momentum edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-10-30, compared against the prior scored session 2026-10-29.
Largest factor move: Momentum +27
New signals
- BB Upper Band Breach — bearish, volatility, short horizon
- Keltner Channel Breakout — bullish, volatility, short horizon
Largest factor move: Momentum -22
New signals
- Keltner Channel Breakdown — bearish, volatility, short horizon
TSM's lead narrowed by 12 AIQ points in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — OWL 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.
OWL (Blue Owl Capital Inc.): the counter-case, on momentum, technicals — but at materially higher volatility, 47.6% against 39.1%.
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 6 points.
Momentum
OWLOWL on the Momentum factor, by 45 points.
Lower downside
TSMTSM on Risk Resilience, by 25 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 | OWL | TSM | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +6.6% | +45% | TSM has more room |
| Target dispersion | +72.7% | +34% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 7 | 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 | 45 vs 60 |
| Fundamentals | TSM | EPS growth -27.2% vs 8%; TTM ROE 3.8% vs 41.2%; gross margin 61.1% vs 65.8%; operating margin 22.6% vs 57.9% |
| Valuation | TSM | Value 39 vs 45 |
| Technicals | OWL | Price vs 50-day 2.5% vs -6.6%; vs 200-day 0.2% vs 3.9% |
| Risk Resilience | TSM | Risk Resilience 37 vs 62 |
| Analyst expectations | TSM | Target upside 6.6% vs 45% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of OWL and TSM and are excluded from the count.
AIQ Decision Stability
The two are close enough that your objective, not the score, should decide.
- The AIQ gap is wide at 15 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 narrowing. (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
120 daily snapshots · Jul 1 – Oct 30TSM lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 32 to 15 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- TSM +15
- 45 vs 60
- 7 sessions ago
- TSM +18
- 39 vs 57
- 30 sessions ago
- TSM +32
- 36 vs 68
- 90 sessions ago
- TSM +18
- 44 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 OWL
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (2.32%)
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (3.90%)
- BB Upper Band Breach — bearish, volatility, short horizon
- Keltner Channel Breakout — bullish, volatility, short horizon
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
1 bullish / 2 bearish, conflicted
Only TSM
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (8.69%)
- Keltner Channel Breakdown — bearish, volatility, short horizon
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
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 is down while the AIQ Score moved up 6 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price -0.77%, AIQ +6 points).
Price and the AIQ Score both moved down over the latest session (price -5.95%, AIQ -6 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.
- 1OWL closes the Quality gap — currently 67 points behind, the largest single contributor to TSM's edge.
- 2OWL'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 2 bearish rules at once.
- 4The narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 17 points over 30 sessions, and a further 15-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
TSM leads on balance| Metric | OWL | TSM |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | -0.1% | 17.6% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -27.2% | 8% |
| Gross margin | 61.1% | 65.8% |
| Operating margin | 22.6% | 57.9% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 3.8% | 41.2% |
| Debt to equity | 2.18 | 0.14 |
Performance
TSM leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | OWL | TSM |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 10.4% | -3% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 13.8% | -13.8% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -7.4% | 0% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 3.5% | 4.7% |
| Year to date | -30.9% | 33.6% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -37.6% | 35.9% |
Technicals
OWL has the stronger structure| Metric | OWL | TSM |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 64.8 | 35.6 |
| ADX (14) | 24.6 | 20.4 |
| Price vs 50-day | 2.5% | -6.6% |
| Price vs 200-day | 0.2% | 3.9% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 47.6% | 39.1% |
Risk
TSM is the more resilient| Metric | OWL | TSM |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1.53 | 2.18 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.78 | 0.84 |
| Sortino ratio | -1.34 | 1.32 |
| Max drawdown | -50.6% | -21.6% |
| Current drawdown | -38% | -16.4% |
| Annualized volatility | 46.4% | 39.7% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -4.6% | -4.2% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, OWL or TSM?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, TSM is the stronger of the two as of Oct 31, 2026, scoring 60 against OWL's 45. The edge comes from quality and risk resilience. OWL is not without a case — it holds the better momentum 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 OWL or TSM the better buy right now?
TSM carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 31, 2026, and the comparison is rated Competitive — 5 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Competitive rating means the two are close enough that your objective, not the score, should decide.
Why does the AIQ Score favor TSM over OWL?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. TSM leads Quality by 67 points; OWL leads Momentum by 45 points; TSM leads Risk Resilience by 25 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, OWL or TSM?
Analyst price targets imply +6.6% upside for OWL 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, OWL or TSM?
TSM is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. TSM on the peer-relative Value factor, by 6 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, OWL 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, OWL or TSM?
OWL on the Momentum factor, by 45 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, OWL or TSM?
TSM is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. TSM on Risk Resilience, by 25 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 OWL more profitable than TSM?
TSM leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 61.1% vs 65.8%; operating margin 22.6% vs 57.9%; ttm roe 3.8% vs 41.2%.
Is TSM's lead over OWL getting stronger or weaker?
TSM lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 32 to 15 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 OWL vs TSM verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: OWL closes the Quality gap — currently 67 points behind, the largest single contributor to TSM's edge; OWL'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 2 bearish rules at once; the narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 17 points over 30 sessions, and a further 15-point move would eliminate TSM's advantage entirely.
What do the current signals say about OWL and TSM?
OWL: 2 bullish / 2 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted. TSM: 1 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 OWL is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon). On TSM it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare OWL 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.