TMC vs TX Stock Comparison
Compare TMC and TX across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between TMC and TX?
TX leads the current stock comparison as Ternium S.A., with the clearest separation coming from risk resilience and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
TMC the metals company inc. vs Ternium S.A.
TX leads
TX leads by 24 AIQ points, primarily on Risk Resilience and Momentum, and the lead has widened from 10 points over 30 sessions. Wall Street currently favors TMC on target upside.
Competitive: 3 of 5 evidence groups support TX, its lead is widening, and its current signal state is conflicted.
TMC the metals company inc.
Ternium S.A.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors TX over TMC, 63 versus 39 as of Sep 11, 2026. TX's advantage is driven primarily by stronger risk resilience and momentum. TX also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors TMC. 3 of 5 covered evidence groups favor TX today, and the comparison is rated Competitive on stability: the lead has swung materially session to session. TX lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 10 to 24 points over 30 sessions.
Compare TMC the metals company inc. and Ternium S.A. 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 TMC and TX 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.
- Risk Resilience35 vs 76TX +41
- Momentum42 vs 78TX +36
- Quality39 vs 40Even
3 of 5 evidence groups favor TX. TX’s edge is concentrated in risk resilience and momentum.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-09-10, compared against the prior scored session 2026-09-09.
Largest factor move: Momentum -18
New signals
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
Largest factor move: Momentum -1
New signals
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
TX's lead widened by 7 AIQ points in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — TMC and TX both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
TX (Ternium S.A.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by risk resilience and momentum.
TMC (TMC the metals company inc.): the counter-case, on analyst expectations — but at materially higher volatility, 99.2% against 18.7%.
The AIQ Score and Wall Street therefore point in different directions on this pair.
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
TXTX on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
TXTX on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
EvenThe two are level on Value.
Momentum
TXTX on the Momentum factor, by 36 points.
Lower downside
TXTX on Risk Resilience, by 41 points.
Analyst upside
TMCTMC on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors TX, analyst targets favor TMC. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | TMC | TX | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +154.1% | -7.6% | TMC has more room |
| Target dispersion | 0% | +54.2% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Strong Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 2 | 6 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
The two are measuring different things. The AIQ Score reads current fundamentals, valuation, trend and risk; analyst targets price forward expectations. A divergence of this kind is either a contrarian opportunity or a sign the model is missing something already priced in — it is worth resolving before acting on either.
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
3 of 5 covered evidence groups favor TX. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | TX | 39 vs 63 |
| Fundamentals | Even | EPS growth -180% vs 63.6%; TTM ROE 9.5% vs 5.8% |
| Valuation | Not covered | Not covered |
| Technicals | TX | Price vs 50-day -5.8% vs 14.3%; vs 200-day -27.8% vs 29.9% |
| Risk Resilience | TX | Risk Resilience 35 vs 76 |
| Analyst expectations | TMC | Target upside 154.1% vs -7.6% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of TMC and TX 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 24 points. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The leader's advantage has been widening. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The lead has swung materially session to session. (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 TX.
How the comparison changed
119 daily snapshots · May 4 – Sep 10TX lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 10 to 24 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- TX +24
- 39 vs 63
- 7 sessions ago
- TX +15
- 48 vs 63
- 30 sessions ago
- TX +10
- 52 vs 62
- 90 sessions ago
- TX +6
- 44 vs 50
The lead changed hands once in this window, most recently on Jun 3 when TX moved ahead of TMC.
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.
0 bullish / 3 bearish / 2 neutral
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (32.93%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
4 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (14.20%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- RSI Overbought — bearish, momentum, short horizon
TX 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 and the AIQ Score both moved down over the latest session (price -1.87%, AIQ -7 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +0.5%, 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.
- 1TMC closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 41 points behind, the largest single contributor to TX's edge.
- 2TMC's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3TX's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 4 bullish and 2 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
Split| Metric | TMC | TX |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 0% | 10.3% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -180% | 63.6% |
| Gross margin | 0% | 17.4% |
| Operating margin | 0% | 7.5% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 9.5% | 5.8% |
| Debt to equity | 0 | 0.24 |
Performance
TX leads 6 of 6 windows| Metric | TMC | TX |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -12.6% | 1.3% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -10.3% | 5% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -17% | 22% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -37.5% | 44.3% |
| Year to date | -35% | 50.9% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -23.2% | 67.9% |
Technicals
TX has the stronger structure| Metric | TMC | TX |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 50.8 | 73.5 |
| ADX (14) | 23 | 48.2 |
| Price vs 50-day | -5.8% | 14.3% |
| Price vs 200-day | -27.8% | 29.9% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 99.2% | 18.7% |
Risk
TX is the more resilient| Metric | TMC | TX |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 3.22 | 1.07 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.15 | 1.75 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.28 | 2.96 |
| Max drawdown | -67.7% | -18.9% |
| Current drawdown | -62.5% | -0.9% |
| Annualized volatility | 95.6% | 31.5% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -8.9% | -3% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, TMC or TX?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, TX is the stronger of the two as of Sep 11, 2026, scoring 63 against TMC's 39. The edge comes from risk resilience and momentum. 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 TMC or TX the better buy right now?
TX carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 11, 2026, and the comparison is rated Competitive — 3 of 5 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 TX over TMC?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. TX leads Risk Resilience by 41 points; TX leads Momentum by 36 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, TMC or TX?
Analyst price targets imply +154.1% upside for TMC and -7.6% for TX, so the Street currently favors TMC. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors TX. The two are measuring different things: the model reads current fundamentals, valuation, trend and risk; the Street is pricing forward expectations. A divergence of this kind is either a contrarian opportunity or a sign the model is missing something the analysts have already priced — it is the single most useful row on this page to investigate. Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions, and dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
Which is better value, TMC or TX?
Neither name separates on the peer-relative Value factor. The two are level on Value. 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, TMC or TX?
TX 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, TMC or TX?
TX on the Momentum factor, by 36 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, TMC or TX?
TX is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. TX on Risk Resilience, by 41 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 TMC more profitable than TX?
TMC leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 0% vs 17.4%; operating margin 0% vs 7.5%; ttm roe 9.5% vs 5.8%.
Is TX's lead over TMC getting stronger or weaker?
TX lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 10 to 24 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 119 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-05-04 and 2026-09-10. The lead has changed hands once in that window, most recently on 2026-06-03, when TX moved ahead of TMC.
What would change the TMC vs TX verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: TMC closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 41 points behind, the largest single contributor to TX's edge; TMC's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it; TX's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 4 bullish and 2 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 TMC and TX?
TMC: 0 bullish / 3 bearish / 2 neutral. TX: 4 bullish / 2 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 TMC is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon). On TX it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare TMC and TX 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.