TSEM vs UMC Stock Comparison
UMC currently leads TSEM in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 51 vs 34. The clearest difference is value, while TSEM has the stronger risk resilience profile.
What is the main difference between TSEM and UMC?
UMC leads the current stock comparison as United Microelectronics Corporation, with the clearest separation coming from value and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Tower Semiconductor Ltd. vs United Microelectronics Corporation
UMC leads
UMC leads by 17 AIQ points, primarily on Value and Momentum, and the lead has widened from 11 points over 30 sessions. Wall Street currently favors TSEM on target upside.
Competitive: 4 of 6 evidence groups support UMC, its lead is widening, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Tower Semiconductor Ltd.
United Microelectronics Corporation
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors UMC over TSEM, 51 versus 34 as of Oct 21, 2026. UMC's advantage is driven primarily by stronger value and momentum, while TSEM holds the stronger risk resilience profile. UMC also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors TSEM. 4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor UMC today, and the comparison is rated Competitive on stability: the leader is throwing conflicting signals. UMC lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 11 to 17 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Tower Semiconductor Ltd. and United Microelectronics Corporation 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 TSEM and UMC 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.
- Value25 vs 60UMC +35
- Momentum11 vs 30UMC +19
- Quality51 vs 63UMC +12
- Risk Resilience57 vs 45TSEM +12
4 of 6 evidence groups favor UMC. UMC’s edge is concentrated in value and momentum; TSEM keeps a meaningful risk resilience edge.
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 -3
New signals
- BB Lower Band Breach — bullish, volatility, short horizon
- Keltner Channel Breakdown — bearish, volatility, short horizon
No factor moved materially.
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 6 active signals are unchanged.
UMC's lead widened by 1 AIQ point in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — TSEM and UMC both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
UMC (United Microelectronics Corporation): the stronger current systematic profile, led by value and momentum.
TSEM (Tower Semiconductor Ltd.): the counter-case, on risk resilience, analyst expectations — but at materially higher volatility, 73.4% against 50.3%.
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
UMCUMC on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
UMCUMC on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
UMCUMC on the peer-relative Value factor, by 35 points.
Momentum
UMCUMC on the Momentum factor, by 19 points.
Lower downside
TSEMTSEM on Risk Resilience, by 12 points.
Analyst upside
TSEMTSEM on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors UMC, analyst targets favor TSEM. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | TSEM | UMC | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +59.3% | -48.5% | TSEM has more room |
| Target dispersion | +19.9% | 0% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Sell | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 5 | 1 | 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
4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor UMC. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | UMC | 34 vs 51 |
| Fundamentals | UMC | revenue growth 11.2% vs 12.6%; EPS growth 40.4% vs 160.8%; TTM ROE 9.8% vs 21%; gross margin 26.9% vs 30.6%; operating margin 16.2% vs 18.9% |
| Valuation | UMC | Value 25 vs 60 |
| Technicals | UMC | Price vs 50-day -15.2% vs -8.5%; vs 200-day -3% vs 20% |
| Risk Resilience | TSEM | Risk Resilience 57 vs 45 |
| Analyst expectations | TSEM | Target upside 59.3% vs -48.5% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of TSEM and UMC 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 17 points. (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 UMC.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20UMC lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 11 to 17 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- UMC +17
- 34 vs 51
- 7 sessions ago
- UMC +13
- 39 vs 52
- 30 sessions ago
- UMC +11
- 51 vs 62
- 90 sessions ago
- UMC +3
- 54 vs 57
The lead changed hands 2 times in this window, most recently on Jul 24 when UMC moved ahead of TSEM.
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 TSEM
- BB Lower Band Breach — bullish, volatility, short horizon
2 bullish / 2 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
Only UMC
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- RSI Oversold - Potential Bounce — bullish, momentum, short horizon
Both carry 4 more signals that do not separate them: Golden Cross Active, ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode, Keltner Channel Breakdown, MACD Bearish Crossover.
UMC 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 +3.14%, AIQ -1 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +0.76%, 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 35 points behind, the largest single contributor to UMC's edge.
- 2TSEM's Keltner Channel Breakdown resolves — a bearish volatility rule currently active against it.
- 3UMC's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 2 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
UMC leads on balance| Metric | TSEM | UMC |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 11.2% | 12.6% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 40.4% | 160.8% |
| Gross margin | 26.9% | 30.6% |
| Operating margin | 16.2% | 18.9% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 9.8% | 21% |
| Debt to equity | 0.05 | 0.12 |
Performance
UMC leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | TSEM | UMC |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -17.3% | -12.1% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -22.3% | -23.7% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -26.3% | -7.6% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -11.3% | 59.5% |
| Year to date | 56.5% | 150.3% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 157.5% | 164.7% |
Technicals
UMC has the stronger structure| Metric | TSEM | UMC |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 33 | 24.4 |
| ADX (14) | 18.3 | 23 |
| Price vs 50-day | -15.2% | -8.5% |
| Price vs 200-day | -3% | 20% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 73.4% | 50.3% |
Risk
TSEM is the more resilient| Metric | TSEM | UMC |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 3.15 | 1.77 |
| Sharpe ratio | 1.47 | 1.76 |
| Sortino ratio | 2.49 | 3.19 |
| Max drawdown | -42% | -38.9% |
| Current drawdown | -42% | -29.8% |
| Annualized volatility | 82.3% | 64.5% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -8.1% | -5.5% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, TSEM or UMC?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, UMC is the stronger of the two as of Oct 21, 2026, scoring 51 against TSEM's 34. The edge comes from value and momentum. TSEM 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 TSEM or UMC the better buy right now?
UMC carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 21, 2026, and the comparison is rated Competitive — 4 of 6 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 UMC over TSEM?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. UMC leads Value by 35 points; UMC leads Momentum by 19 points; UMC leads Quality by 12 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, TSEM or UMC?
Analyst price targets imply +59.3% upside for TSEM and -48.5% for UMC, so the Street currently favors TSEM. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors UMC. 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, TSEM or UMC?
UMC is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. UMC on the peer-relative Value factor, by 35 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, TSEM or UMC?
UMC 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, TSEM or UMC?
UMC on the Momentum factor, by 19 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, TSEM or UMC?
TSEM is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. TSEM on Risk Resilience, by 12 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 TSEM more profitable than UMC?
UMC leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 26.9% vs 30.6%; operating margin 16.2% vs 18.9%; ttm roe 9.8% vs 21%.
Is UMC's lead over TSEM getting stronger or weaker?
UMC lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 11 to 17 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-06-21 and 2026-10-20. The lead has changed hands 2 times in that window, most recently on 2026-07-24, when UMC moved ahead of TSEM.
What would change the TSEM vs UMC verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: TSEM closes the Value gap — currently 35 points behind, the largest single contributor to UMC's edge; TSEM's Keltner Channel Breakdown resolves — a bearish volatility rule currently active against it; UMC's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 2 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 TSEM and UMC?
TSEM: 2 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. UMC: 2 bullish / 2 bearish / 2 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 TSEM is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On UMC it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare TSEM and UMC 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.