TSM vs GLD Stock Comparison
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited vs SPDR Gold Shares
TSM leads
TSM leads by 2 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Risk Resilience, having only recently taken the lead back from GLD.
Fragile: 2 of 3 evidence groups support TSM, the lead recently changed hands, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited
SPDR Gold Shares
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors TSM over GLD, 62 versus 60 as of Sep 5, 2026. TSM's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and risk resilience, while GLD holds the stronger momentum profile. TSM also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 2 of 3 covered evidence groups favor TSM today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 2 points. TSM lead: Reversed — GLD led by 5 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; TSM now leads by 2.
Compare Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited and SPDR Gold Shares across the Algovestiq AIQ Score, valuation, quality, momentum, risk, technicals and analyst expectations.
Compare TSM and GLD 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%96 vs 72TSM +24
- Risk Resilience15%69 vs 49TSM +20
- Momentum25%42 vs 52GLD +10
2 of 3 evidence groups favor TSM. TSM’s edge is concentrated in quality and risk resilience; GLD keeps a meaningful momentum 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 +3
No new signals fired.
Largest factor move: Momentum +3
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 — TSM and GLD 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 risk resilience.
GLD (SPDR Gold Shares): the counter-case, on momentum.
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
EvenThe two are level on Value.
Momentum
GLDGLD on the Momentum factor, by 10 points.
Lower downside
TSMTSM on Risk Resilience, by 20 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 | TSM | GLD | 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 3 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 | Even | 62 vs 60 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | Not covered | Not covered |
| Technicals | TSM | Price vs 50-day 2% vs 4.8%; vs 200-day 12.1% vs -1.2% |
| Risk Resilience | TSM | Risk Resilience 69 vs 49 |
| 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 TSM and GLD 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 2 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The lead has already changed hands inside the comparison window. (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 TSM.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Apr 22 – Sep 3TSM lead: Reversed — GLD led by 5 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; TSM now leads by 2.
- Today
- TSM +2
- 62 vs 60
- 7 sessions ago
- GLD +1
- 62 vs 63
- 30 sessions ago
- GLD +5
- 68 vs 73
- 90 sessions ago
- TSM +20
- 68 vs 48
The lead changed hands 2 times in this window, most recently on Sep 1 when TSM moved ahead of GLD.
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, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (13.02%)
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
0 bullish / 2 bearish
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (6.99%)
- 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 and the AIQ Score both moved up over the latest session (price +2.85%, AIQ +1 points).
Price is down while the AIQ Score moved up 1 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price -0.84%, 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.
- 1GLD closes the Quality gap — currently 24 points behind, the largest single contributor to TSM's edge.
- 2GLD's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 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 | TSM | GLD |
|---|---|---|
| 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 | — |
Technicals
TSM has the stronger structure| Metric | TSM | GLD |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 43.6 | 55 |
| ADX (14) | 7.6 | 23.6 |
| Price vs 50-day | 2% | 4.8% |
| Price vs 200-day | 12.1% | -1.2% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 24.3% | 27.9% |
Risk
TSM is the more resilient| Metric | TSM | GLD |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 2.18 | 0.73 |
| Sharpe ratio | 1.57 | 0.78 |
| Sortino ratio | 2.52 | 0.94 |
| Max drawdown | -21.6% | -26.4% |
| Current drawdown | -12.7% | -17.3% |
| Annualized volatility | 40.4% | 29.3% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -4.1% | -3.1% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, TSM or GLD?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, TSM is the stronger of the two as of Sep 5, 2026, scoring 62 against GLD's 60. The edge comes from quality and risk resilience. GLD is not without a case — it holds the better momentum 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 TSM or GLD the better buy right now?
TSM carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 5, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 2 of 3 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: the AIQ gap is narrow at 2 points. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor TSM over GLD?
The composite weights Quality at 30%, Value at 30%, Momentum at 25% and Risk Resilience at 15%. TSM leads Quality by 24 points; TSM leads Risk Resilience by 20 points; GLD leads Momentum by 10 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, TSM or GLD?
Analyst price targets imply +35.1% upside for TSM and not covered for GLD. 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, TSM or GLD?
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, TSM or GLD?
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, TSM or GLD?
GLD 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, TSM or GLD?
TSM is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. TSM on Risk Resilience, by 20 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 TSM more profitable than GLD?
Margin data is not comparable for both names in the current snapshot.
Is TSM's lead over GLD getting stronger or weaker?
TSM lead: Reversed — GLD led by 5 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; TSM now leads by 2. 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 2026-09-01, when TSM moved ahead of GLD.
What would change the TSM vs GLD verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: GLD closes the Quality gap — currently 24 points behind, the largest single contributor to TSM's edge; GLD's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it; 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 TSM and GLD?
TSM: 1 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted. GLD: 0 bullish / 2 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 TSM is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On GLD it is Death Cross Active (bearish, 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.