SCHW vs TSM Stock Comparison
Compare SCHW and TSM across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between SCHW 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
The Charles Schwab Corporation vs Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited
TSM leads
TSM leads by 12 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Value, and the lead has widened from 8 points over 30 sessions.
Stable: 4 of 6 evidence groups support TSM, its lead is widening, and its signal state is cleanly positive.
The Charles Schwab Corporation
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors TSM over SCHW, 68 versus 56 as of Sep 6, 2026. TSM's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and value, while SCHW holds the stronger risk resilience profile. TSM also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor TSM today, and the comparison is rated Stable on stability. TSM lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 8 to 12 points over 30 sessions.
Compare The Charles Schwab Corporation 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 SCHW 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%69 vs 96TSM +27
- Value30%31 vs 42TSM +11
- Risk Resilience15%77 vs 69SCHW +8
- Momentum25%57 vs 63TSM +6
4 of 6 evidence groups favor TSM. TSM’s edge is concentrated in quality and value; SCHW keeps a meaningful risk resilience edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-09-05, compared against the prior scored session 2026-09-04.
No factor moved materially.
No new signals fired.
No factor moved materially.
No new signals fired.
TSM's lead was unchanged in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — SCHW 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 value.
SCHW (The Charles Schwab Corporation): the counter-case, on risk resilience.
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
TSMTSM on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
TSMTSM on the peer-relative Value factor, by 11 points.
Momentum
TSMTSM on the Momentum factor, by 6 points.
Lower downside
SCHWSCHW on Risk Resilience, by 8 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 | SCHW | TSM | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +15.2% | +33.6% | TSM has more room |
| Target dispersion | +31.8% | +38.4% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 10 | 7 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
4 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 | 56 vs 68 |
| Fundamentals | TSMon balance | revenue growth 16.7% vs 12%; EPS growth 13.1% vs 22.1%; TTM ROE 20.4% vs 39.3%; gross margin 86.7% vs 64.2%; operating margin 43.5% vs 56% — TSM takes 3 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | TSM | Value 31 vs 42 |
| Technicals | Even | Price vs 50-day 4% vs 2%; vs 200-day 12.2% vs 15% |
| Risk Resilience | SCHW | Risk Resilience 77 vs 69 |
| Analyst expectations | TSM | Target upside 15.2% vs 33.6% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of SCHW 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 12 points. (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
120 daily snapshots · Apr 24 – Sep 5TSM lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 8 to 12 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- TSM +12
- 56 vs 68
- 7 sessions ago
- TSM +3
- 58 vs 61
- 30 sessions ago
- TSM +8
- 62 vs 70
- 90 sessions ago
- TSM +2
- 61 vs 63
The lead changed hands 3 times in this window, most recently on Aug 25 when TSM moved ahead of SCHW.
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.
3 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (7.84%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
4 bullish / 0 bearish
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (12.76%)
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
SCHW 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.
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price -0.99%, AIQ 0 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +2.85%, 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.
- 1SCHW closes the Quality gap — currently 27 points behind, the largest single contributor to TSM's edge.
- 2SCHW's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend.
- 3TSM's Golden Cross Active breaks down — it is the strongest rule currently supporting the verdict.
- 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
TSM leads on balance| Metric | SCHW | TSM |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 16.7% | 12% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 13.1% | 22.1% |
| Gross margin | 86.7% | 64.2% |
| Operating margin | 43.5% | 56% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 20.4% | 39.3% |
| Debt to equity | 0.74 | 0.15 |
Performance
TSM leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | SCHW | TSM |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -0.8% | 2.7% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 1.6% | 2.1% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 23% | 3.3% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 14.8% | 26.6% |
| Year to date | 9.4% | 41.1% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 13.6% | 85.4% |
Technicals
Split| Metric | SCHW | TSM |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 46.7 | 48.7 |
| ADX (14) | 30.2 | 7.6 |
| Price vs 50-day | 4% | 2% |
| Price vs 200-day | 12.2% | 15% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 21% | 25.9% |
Risk
SCHW is the more resilient| Metric | SCHW | TSM |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.46 | 2.18 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.42 | 1.6 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.52 | 2.57 |
| Max drawdown | -20.4% | -21.6% |
| Current drawdown | -3.8% | -10.2% |
| Annualized volatility | 25.4% | 40.5% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.5% | -4.1% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, SCHW or TSM?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, TSM is the stronger of the two as of Sep 6, 2026, scoring 68 against SCHW's 56. The edge comes from quality and value. SCHW is not without a case — it holds the better risk resilience 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 SCHW or TSM the better buy right now?
TSM carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 6, 2026, and the comparison is rated Stable — 4 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 SCHW?
The composite weights Quality at 30%, Value at 30%, Momentum at 25% and Risk Resilience at 15%. TSM leads Quality by 27 points; TSM leads Value by 11 points; SCHW leads Risk Resilience by 8 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, SCHW or TSM?
Analyst price targets imply +15.2% upside for SCHW and +33.6% 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, SCHW or TSM?
TSM is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. TSM on the peer-relative Value factor, by 11 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, SCHW 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, SCHW or TSM?
TSM on the Momentum factor, by 6 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, SCHW or TSM?
SCHW is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. SCHW on Risk Resilience, by 8 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 SCHW more profitable than TSM?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 86.7% vs 64.2%; operating margin 43.5% vs 56%; ttm roe 20.4% vs 39.3%. SCHW leads on one measure and TSM on two measures, and there is no single profitability composite that resolves the split — which of the two reads as "more profitable" depends on whether you weight pricing power or operating leverage.
Is TSM's lead over SCHW getting stronger or weaker?
TSM lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 8 to 12 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-04-24 and 2026-09-05. The lead has changed hands 3 times in that window, most recently on 2026-08-25, when TSM moved ahead of SCHW.
What would change the SCHW vs TSM verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: SCHW closes the Quality gap — currently 27 points behind, the largest single contributor to TSM's edge; SCHW's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend; TSM's Golden Cross Active breaks down — it is the strongest rule currently supporting the verdict; 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 SCHW and TSM?
SCHW: 3 bullish / 1 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 SCHW is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On TSM it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare SCHW and TSM with others
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.