TSM vs LRCX Stock Comparison
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited vs Lam Research Corporation
TSM leads
TSM leads by 10 AIQ points, primarily on Risk Resilience and Value.
Stable: 5 of 6 evidence groups support TSM, and its signal state is cleanly positive.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited
Lam Research Corporation
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors TSM over LRCX, 61 versus 51 as of Sep 2, 2026. TSM's advantage is driven primarily by stronger risk resilience and value. TSM also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 5 of 6 covered evidence groups favor TSM today, and the comparison is rated Stable on stability. TSM lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 10 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited and Lam Research Corporation across the Algovestiq AIQ Score, valuation, quality, momentum, risk, technicals and analyst expectations.
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 Resilience15%67 vs 39TSM +28
- Value30%38 vs 27TSM +11
- Quality30%96 vs 88TSM +8
- Momentum25%45 vs 42Even
5 of 6 evidence groups favor TSM. TSM’s edge is concentrated in risk resilience and value.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-09-01, compared against the prior scored session 2026-08-31.
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 — TSM and LRCX both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
TSM (Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited): the stronger current systematic profile, led by risk resilience and value.
LRCX (Lam Research Corporation): the counter-case, on fundamentals — but at materially higher volatility, 54.8% against 26.1%.
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
LRCXLRCX on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
TSMTSM on the peer-relative Value factor, by 11 points.
Momentum
EvenThe two are level on Momentum.
Lower downside
TSMTSM on Risk Resilience, by 28 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 | TSM | LRCX | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +40.2% | +29.6% | TSM has more room |
| Target dispersion | +38% | +85.9% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 6 | 17 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
5 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 | 61 vs 51 |
| Fundamentals | LRCXon balance | revenue growth 12% vs 15.1%; EPS growth 22.1% vs 24.7%; ROE 39.3% vs 67%; gross margin 64.2% vs 50.5%; operating margin 56% vs 35.3% — LRCX takes 3 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | TSM | Value 38 vs 27 |
| Technicals | TSM | Price vs 50-day -2.2% vs -12.7%; vs 200-day 12.2% vs 16.8% |
| Risk Resilience | TSM | Risk Resilience 67 vs 39 |
| Analyst expectations | TSM | Target upside 40.2% vs 29.6% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of TSM and LRCX 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 moderate at 10 points.
- 5 of 6 covered evidence groups point the same way. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The lead has been steady session to session. (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 20 – Sep 1TSM lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 10 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- TSM +10
- 61 vs 51
- 7 sessions ago
- TSM +13
- 67 vs 54
- 30 sessions ago
- TSM +8
- 62 vs 54
- 90 sessions ago
- TSM +3
- 63 vs 60
The lead has not changed hands in this window.
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 / 0 bearish / 1 neutral
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (14.14%)
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- EMA Ribbon Compression — neutral, trend, medium horizon
1 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (27.67%)
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (5.71%)
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
LRCX 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 -0.22%, AIQ 0 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price -0.95%, 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.
- 1LRCX closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 28 points behind, the largest single contributor to TSM's edge.
- 2LRCX's MACD Bearish Crossover resolves — a bearish momentum rule currently active against it.
- 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
LRCX leads on balance| Metric | TSM | LRCX |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 12% | 15.1% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 22.1% | 24.7% |
| Gross margin | 64.2% | 50.5% |
| Operating margin | 56% | 35.3% |
| Return on equity | 39.3% | 67% |
| Debt to equity | 0.15 | 0.33 |
Technicals
TSM has the stronger structure| Metric | TSM | LRCX |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 45.8 | 45.8 |
| ADX (14) | 8.2 | 7.9 |
| Price vs 50-day | -2.2% | -12.7% |
| Price vs 200-day | 12.2% | 16.8% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 26.1% | 54.8% |
Risk
TSM is the more resilient| Metric | TSM | LRCX |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 2.21 | 3.3 |
| Sharpe ratio | 1.48 | 1.93 |
| Sortino ratio | 2.4 | 3.15 |
| Max drawdown | -21.6% | -41.8% |
| Current drawdown | -13% | -30.4% |
| Annualized volatility | 40.6% | 64% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -4.1% | -6.1% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, TSM or LRCX?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, TSM is the stronger of the two as of Sep 2, 2026, scoring 61 against LRCX's 51. The edge comes from risk resilience and value. 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 LRCX the better buy right now?
TSM carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 2, 2026, and the comparison is rated Stable — 5 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 LRCX?
The composite weights Quality at 30%, Value at 30%, Momentum at 25% and Risk Resilience at 15%. TSM leads Risk Resilience by 28 points; TSM leads Value by 11 points; TSM leads Quality by 8 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, TSM or LRCX?
Analyst price targets imply +40.2% upside for TSM and +29.6% for LRCX, 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, TSM or LRCX?
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, TSM or LRCX?
LRCX 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, TSM or LRCX?
The two are level on Momentum. 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 LRCX?
TSM is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. TSM on Risk Resilience, by 28 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 LRCX?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 64.2% vs 50.5%; operating margin 56% vs 35.3%; roe 39.3% vs 67%. TSM leads on two measures and LRCX on one measure, 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 LRCX getting stronger or weaker?
TSM lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 10 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-04-20 and 2026-09-01. The lead has not changed hands in that window.
What would change the TSM vs LRCX verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: LRCX closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 28 points behind, the largest single contributor to TSM's edge; LRCX's MACD Bearish Crossover resolves — a bearish momentum rule currently active against it; 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 TSM and LRCX?
TSM: 3 bullish / 0 bearish / 1 neutral. LRCX: 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 TSM is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On LRCX it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare TSM and LRCX 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.