SCHA vs TSM Stock Comparison
Schwab U.S. Small-Cap ETF vs Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited
TSM leads
TSM leads by 8 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Momentum.
Fragile: 2 of 4 evidence groups support TSM, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Schwab U.S. Small-Cap ETF
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors TSM over SCHA, 62 versus 54 as of Sep 5, 2026. TSM's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and momentum, while SCHA 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: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 8 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Schwab U.S. Small-Cap ETF and Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited across the Algovestiq AIQ Score, valuation, quality, momentum, risk, technicals and analyst expectations.
Compare SCHA 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.
- Quality30%64 vs 96TSM +32
- Momentum25%32 vs 42TSM +10
- Value30%51 vs 42SCHA +9
- Risk Resilience15%78 vs 69SCHA +9
2 of 4 evidence groups favor TSM. TSM’s edge is concentrated in quality and momentum; SCHA keeps a meaningful value edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-09-03, compared against the prior scored session 2026-09-02.
Largest factor move: Momentum -2
No new signals fired.
Largest factor move: Momentum +3
No new signals fired.
TSM's lead widened by 2 AIQ points in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — SCHA 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 momentum.
SCHA (Schwab U.S. Small-Cap ETF): the counter-case, on value, risk resilience, valuation.
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 at 30% each.
Growth
EvenGrowth figures are not covered for both names.
Value
SCHASCHA on the peer-relative Value factor, by 9 points.
Momentum
TSMTSM on the Momentum factor, by 10 points.
Lower downside
SCHASCHA on Risk Resilience, by 9 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 | SCHA | TSM | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | — | +35.1% | Level |
| Target dispersion | — | +38% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | — | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | — | 6 | 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 | 54 vs 62 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | SCHA | Value 51 vs 42 |
| Technicals | TSM | Price vs 50-day -0.2% vs 2%; vs 200-day 7.8% vs 12.1% |
| Risk Resilience | SCHA | Risk Resilience 78 vs 69 |
| 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 SCHA 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 8 points.
- Only 2 of 4 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The lead has been steady session to session. (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 · Apr 22 – Sep 3TSM lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 8 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- TSM +8
- 54 vs 62
- 7 sessions ago
- TSM +6
- 56 vs 62
- 30 sessions ago
- TSM +6
- 62 vs 68
- 90 sessions ago
- TSM +5
- 63 vs 68
The lead changed hands 2 times in this window, most recently on Jul 29 when TSM moved ahead of SCHA.
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 / 1 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (9.04%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- ATR Contraction - Coiling — neutral, volatility, short horizon (1.32%)
1 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (13.02%)
- 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 up while the AIQ Score moved down 1 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price +0.99%, AIQ -1 points).
Price and the AIQ Score both moved up over the latest session (price +2.85%, 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.
- 1SCHA closes the Quality gap — currently 32 points behind, the largest single contributor to TSM's edge.
- 2SCHA's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend.
- 3TSM's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once.
- 4A regime shift changes factor weighting — the composite weights Quality and Value at 30% each, 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
Split| Metric | SCHA | TSM |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | — | 12% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | — | 22.1% |
| Gross margin | — | 64.2% |
| Operating margin | — | 56% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | — | 39.3% |
| Debt to equity | — | 0.15 |
Performance
TSM leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | SCHA | TSM |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -1.6% | -2.4% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -0.6% | -0.3% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -0.4% | -4.8% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 14.4% | 17.8% |
| Year to date | 20.1% | 37.2% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 25.9% | 82.6% |
Technicals
TSM has the stronger structure| Metric | SCHA | TSM |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 30.3 | 43.6 |
| ADX (14) | 18 | 7.6 |
| Price vs 50-day | -0.2% | 2% |
| Price vs 200-day | 7.8% | 12.1% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 14.8% | 24.3% |
Risk
SCHA is the more resilient| Metric | SCHA | TSM |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1.22 | 2.18 |
| Sharpe ratio | 1.11 | 1.57 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.89 | 2.52 |
| Max drawdown | -9.6% | -21.6% |
| Current drawdown | -5.3% | -12.7% |
| Annualized volatility | 19.1% | 40.4% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -1.8% | -4.1% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, SCHA or TSM?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, TSM is the stronger of the two as of Sep 5, 2026, scoring 62 against SCHA's 54. The edge comes from quality and momentum. SCHA 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 SCHA or TSM the better buy right now?
TSM carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 5, 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 SCHA?
The composite weights Quality at 30%, Value at 30%, Momentum at 25% and Risk Resilience at 15%. TSM leads Quality by 32 points; TSM leads Momentum by 10 points; SCHA leads Value by 9 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, SCHA or TSM?
Analyst price targets imply not covered upside for SCHA and +35.1% 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, SCHA or TSM?
SCHA is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. SCHA on the peer-relative Value factor, by 9 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, SCHA 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, SCHA or TSM?
TSM on the Momentum factor, by 10 points. Momentum carries 25% of 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, SCHA or TSM?
SCHA is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. SCHA on Risk Resilience, by 9 points. The Risk Resilience factor weights 15% of the composite; position sizing usually responds to it more usefully than the buy/avoid decision does.
Is SCHA more profitable than TSM?
Margin data is not comparable for both names in the current snapshot.
Is TSM's lead over SCHA getting stronger or weaker?
TSM lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 8 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-04-22 and 2026-09-03. The lead has changed hands 2 times in that window, most recently on 2026-07-29, when TSM moved ahead of SCHA.
What would change the SCHA vs TSM verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: SCHA closes the Quality gap — currently 32 points behind, the largest single contributor to TSM's edge; SCHA's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend; TSM's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once; a regime shift changes factor weighting — the composite weights Quality and Value at 30% each, so a rotation toward either would move the result most.
What do the current signals say about SCHA and TSM?
SCHA: 1 bullish / 1 bearish / 2 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 SCHA is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On TSM it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
How this comparison is scored
The Algovestiq AIQ Score composites four factors — Quality (30%), Value (30%), Momentum (25%) and Risk (15%). 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.