STM vs TSEM Stock Comparison
Compare STM and TSEM across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between STM and TSEM?
STM leads the current stock comparison as STMicroelectronics N.V., with the clearest separation coming from value and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
STMicroelectronics N.V. vs Tower Semiconductor Ltd.
STM leads
STM leads by 5 AIQ points, primarily on Value and Momentum, having only recently taken the lead back from TSEM.
Fragile: 3 of 6 evidence groups support STM, the lead recently changed hands, and its signal state is cleanly positive.
STMicroelectronics N.V.
Tower Semiconductor Ltd.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors STM over TSEM, 44 versus 39 as of Sep 6, 2026. STM's advantage is driven primarily by stronger value and momentum, while TSEM holds the stronger quality profile. STM also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor STM today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 5 points. STM lead: Reversed — TSEM led by 8 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; STM now leads by 5.
Compare STMicroelectronics N.V. and Tower Semiconductor Ltd. 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 STM and TSEM 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.
- Value30%40 vs 25STM +15
- Momentum25%41 vs 29STM +12
- Quality30%45 vs 51TSEM +6
- Risk Resilience15%54 vs 57Even
3 of 6 evidence groups favor STM. STM’s edge is concentrated in value and momentum; TSEM keeps a meaningful quality 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.
STM's lead was unchanged in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — STM and TSEM both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
STM (STMicroelectronics N.V.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by value and momentum.
TSEM (Tower Semiconductor Ltd.): the counter-case, on quality, fundamentals, technicals — but at materially higher volatility, 65.1% against 40.5%.
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
STMSTM on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value at 30% each.
Growth
TSEMTSEM on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
STMSTM on the peer-relative Value factor, by 15 points.
Momentum
STMSTM on the Momentum factor, by 12 points.
Lower downside
STMSTM carries the lower 1-month annualized volatility.
Analyst upside
STMSTM 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 | STM | TSEM | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +39.8% | +34.9% | STM has more room |
| Target dispersion | +71.2% | +20% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 8 | 3 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor STM. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | STM | 44 vs 39 |
| Fundamentals | TSEMon balance | revenue growth 12.7% vs 11.2%; EPS growth 5.3% vs 40.4%; TTM ROE 2.7% vs 9.8%; gross margin 34.3% vs 26.9%; operating margin 5.8% vs 16.2% — TSEM takes 3 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | STM | Value 40 vs 25 |
| Technicals | TSEM | Price vs 50-day -9.9% vs -3.6%; vs 200-day 15.3% vs 19.4% |
| Risk Resilience | Even | Risk Resilience 54 vs 57 |
| Analyst expectations | STM | Target upside 39.8% vs 34.9% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of STM and TSEM 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 narrow at 5 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The lead has already changed hands inside the comparison window. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The leader's signal state is cleanly positive. (supports the conclusion holding)
- Analyst targets on the leader are widely dispersed. (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 STM.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Apr 24 – Sep 5STM lead: Reversed — TSEM led by 8 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; STM now leads by 5.
- Today
- STM +5
- 44 vs 39
- 7 sessions ago
- STM +6
- 42 vs 36
- 30 sessions ago
- TSEM +8
- 45 vs 53
- 90 sessions ago
- STM +7
- 44 vs 37
The lead changed hands 5 times in this window, most recently on Jul 30 when TSEM moved ahead of STM.
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 / 0 bearish / 1 neutral
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (27.99%)
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (4.05%)
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
1 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (23.95%)
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (7.05%)
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
TSEM 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 +1.87%, AIQ 0 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +7.85%, 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.
- 1TSEM closes the Value gap — currently 15 points behind, the largest single contributor to STM's edge.
- 2TSEM's MACD Bearish Crossover resolves — a bearish momentum rule currently active against it.
- 3STM'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
TSEM leads on balance| Metric | STM | TSEM |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 12.7% | 11.2% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 5.3% | 40.4% |
| Gross margin | 34.3% | 26.9% |
| Operating margin | 5.8% | 16.2% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 2.7% | 9.8% |
| Debt to equity | 0.23 | 0.05 |
Performance
TSEM leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | STM | TSEM |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 5.8% | 6.9% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -6.9% | -11.9% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -26.1% | -5.6% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 66.6% | 101% |
| Year to date | 101.4% | 89.4% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 102.5% | 257.1% |
Technicals
TSEM has the stronger structure| Metric | STM | TSEM |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 38.9 | 31.1 |
| ADX (14) | 26.2 | 14.6 |
| Price vs 50-day | -9.9% | -3.6% |
| Price vs 200-day | 15.3% | 19.4% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 40.5% | 65.1% |
Risk
Split| Metric | STM | TSEM |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 2.69 | 2.92 |
| Sharpe ratio | 1.38 | 1.94 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.92 | 3.24 |
| Max drawdown | -39.5% | -40.7% |
| Current drawdown | -34.6% | -29.8% |
| Annualized volatility | 59.7% | 79% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -5.5% | -7.6% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, STM or TSEM?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, STM is the stronger of the two as of Sep 6, 2026, scoring 44 against TSEM's 39. The edge comes from value and momentum. TSEM is not without a case — it holds the better quality 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 STM or TSEM the better buy right now?
STM carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 6, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: the AIQ gap is narrow at 5 points. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor STM over TSEM?
The composite weights Quality at 30%, Value at 30%, Momentum at 25% and Risk Resilience at 15%. STM leads Value by 15 points; STM leads Momentum by 12 points; TSEM leads Quality by 6 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, STM or TSEM?
Analyst price targets imply +39.8% upside for STM and +34.9% for TSEM, so the Street currently favors STM. 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, STM or TSEM?
STM is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. STM on the peer-relative Value factor, by 15 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, STM or TSEM?
TSEM 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, STM or TSEM?
STM on the Momentum factor, by 12 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, STM or TSEM?
STM is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. STM carries the lower 1-month annualized volatility. The Risk Resilience factor weights 15% of the composite; position sizing usually responds to it more usefully than the buy/avoid decision does.
Is STM more profitable than TSEM?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 34.3% vs 26.9%; operating margin 5.8% vs 16.2%; ttm roe 2.7% vs 9.8%. STM leads on one measure and TSEM 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 STM's lead over TSEM getting stronger or weaker?
STM lead: Reversed — TSEM led by 8 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; STM now leads by 5. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-04-24 and 2026-09-05. The lead has changed hands 5 times in that window, most recently on 2026-07-30, when TSEM moved ahead of STM.
What would change the STM vs TSEM verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: TSEM closes the Value gap — currently 15 points behind, the largest single contributor to STM's edge; TSEM's MACD Bearish Crossover resolves — a bearish momentum rule currently active against it; STM'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 STM and TSEM?
STM: 2 bullish / 0 bearish / 1 neutral. TSEM: 1 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, 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 STM is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On TSEM it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare STM and TSEM 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.