PWR vs TSM Stock Comparison
TSM currently leads PWR in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 58 vs 35. The clearest difference is quality.
What is the main difference between PWR 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
Quanta Services, Inc. vs Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited
TSM leads
TSM leads by 23 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Risk Resilience, and the lead has widened from 20 points over 30 sessions.
Stable: 6 of 6 evidence groups support TSM, its lead is widening, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Quanta Services, Inc.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors TSM over PWR, 58 versus 35 as of Oct 22, 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. 6 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 20 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 Quanta Services, 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 PWR 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.
- Quality41 vs 98TSM +57
- Risk Resilience46 vs 67TSM +21
- Value37 vs 45TSM +8
- Momentum17 vs 21TSM +4
6 of 6 evidence groups favor TSM. TSM’s edge is concentrated in quality and risk resilience.
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 -2, not enough on its own to move the overall score.
New signals
- BB Lower Band Breach — bullish, volatility, short horizon
- Keltner Channel Breakdown — bearish, volatility, short horizon
Largest factor move: Momentum +3
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 2 active signals are unchanged.
TSM's lead widened by 1 AIQ point in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — PWR and TSM both carry a full feed there.
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
PWRPWR on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
TSMTSM on the peer-relative Value factor, by 8 points.
Momentum
TSMTSM on the Momentum factor, by 4 points.
Lower downside
TSMTSM on Risk Resilience, by 21 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 | PWR | TSM | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +29.9% | +36.4% | TSM has more room |
| Target dispersion | +37.8% | +34% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 13 | 7 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
Dividend growth
| Dividend metric | PWR | TSM |
|---|---|---|
| 5Y dividend CAGR | 13.75% | 15.29% |
| 2020 regular DPS | $0.210 | $1.360 |
| 2025 regular DPS | $0.400 | $2.769 |
| Years increased | 2 | 4 |
| No cut in window | No (3) | No (1) |
| Cohort rank | not ranked | not ranked |
TSM grew its split-adjusted regular dividend faster over 2020–2025 — 15.29% a year against PWR's 13.75%. They are ranked in different cohorts — variable-dividend payers and US dividend-paying corporations — so their ranks are not comparable with each other.
Yield and payout ratio shown elsewhere on this page are current values, not part of the study window.
Split-adjusted regular dividends per share, 2020–2025, excluding special dividends. Research as of Sep 19, 2026.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
6 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 | 35 vs 58 |
| Fundamentals | TSMon balance | revenue growth 21.4% vs 17.6%; EPS growth 104.8% vs 8%; TTM ROE 14.9% vs 41.2%; gross margin 14.4% vs 65.8%; operating margin 6.2% vs 57.9% — TSM takes 3 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | TSM | Value 37 vs 45 |
| Technicals | TSM | Price vs 50-day -7.2% vs -0.6%; vs 200-day -0.1% vs 7.3% |
| Risk Resilience | TSM | Risk Resilience 46 vs 67 |
| Analyst expectations | TSM | Target upside 29.9% vs 36.4% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of PWR 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)
- 6 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 · Jun 21 – Oct 20TSM lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 20 to 23 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- TSM +23
- 35 vs 58
- 7 sessions ago
- TSM +16
- 40 vs 56
- 30 sessions ago
- TSM +20
- 52 vs 72
- 90 sessions ago
- TSM +18
- 53 vs 71
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 / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only PWR
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (4.53%)
- BB Lower Band Breach — bullish, volatility, short horizon
- Keltner Channel Breakdown — bearish, volatility, short horizon
1 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted
No signal that the other name lacks.
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 +0.86%, AIQ 0 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.
- 1PWR closes the Quality gap — currently 57 points behind, the largest single contributor to TSM's edge.
- 2PWR'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 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 | PWR | TSM |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 21.4% | 17.6% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 104.8% | 8% |
| Gross margin | 14.4% | 65.8% |
| Operating margin | 6.2% | 57.9% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 14.9% | 41.2% |
| Debt to equity | 0.69 | 0.14 |
Performance
TSM leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | PWR | TSM |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -12.7% | -4.5% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -7.3% | -6% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -7.3% | 0.9% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 4.5% | 15.5% |
| Year to date | 41.2% | 39.9% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 39.3% | 41.8% |
Technicals
TSM has the stronger structure| Metric | PWR | TSM |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 40.4 | 36.7 |
| ADX (14) | 20.4 | 21.6 |
| Price vs 50-day | -7.2% | -0.6% |
| Price vs 200-day | -0.1% | 7.3% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 39.5% | 28.8% |
Risk
TSM is the more resilient| Metric | PWR | TSM |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1.67 | 2.11 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.84 | 1.04 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.46 | 1.66 |
| Max drawdown | -28.5% | -21.6% |
| Current drawdown | -24.1% | -12.5% |
| Annualized volatility | 44.9% | 38.9% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -4.4% | -3.8% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, PWR or TSM?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, TSM is the stronger of the two as of Oct 22, 2026, scoring 58 against PWR's 35. 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 PWR or TSM the better buy right now?
TSM carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 22, 2026, and the comparison is rated Stable — 6 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 PWR?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. TSM leads Quality by 57 points; TSM leads Risk Resilience by 21 points; TSM leads Value by 8 points. TSM leads on all four AIQ factor dimensions. Value is itself one of those four, so the sweep is not explained by PWR 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, PWR or TSM?
Analyst price targets imply +29.9% upside for PWR and +36.4% 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, PWR or TSM?
TSM is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. TSM on the peer-relative Value factor, by 8 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, PWR or TSM?
PWR 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, PWR or TSM?
TSM on the Momentum factor, by 4 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, PWR or TSM?
TSM is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. TSM on Risk Resilience, by 21 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 PWR more profitable than TSM?
TSM leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 14.4% vs 65.8%; operating margin 6.2% vs 57.9%; ttm roe 14.9% vs 41.2%.
Is TSM's lead over PWR getting stronger or weaker?
TSM lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 20 to 23 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-06-21 and 2026-10-20. The lead has not changed hands in that window.
What would change the PWR vs TSM verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: PWR closes the Quality gap — currently 57 points behind, the largest single contributor to TSM's edge; PWR'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 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 PWR and TSM?
PWR: 2 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. 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 PWR is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On TSM it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare PWR 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.