TSM vs MU Stock Comparison
TSM currently leads MU in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 58 vs 57. The clearest difference is risk resilience, while MU has the stronger value profile.
What is the main difference between TSM and MU?
TSM leads the current stock comparison as Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited, with the clearest separation coming from risk resilience and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited vs Micron Technology, Inc.
TSM leads
TSM leads by 1 AIQ points, primarily on Risk Resilience and Momentum. Wall Street currently favors MU on target upside.
Fragile: 1 of 6 evidence groups support TSM, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited
Micron Technology, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors TSM over MU, 58 versus 57 as of Oct 21, 2026. TSM's advantage is driven primarily by stronger risk resilience and momentum, while MU holds the stronger value profile. TSM also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors MU. 1 of 6 covered evidence groups favor TSM today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 1 points. TSM lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 1 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited and Micron Technology, Inc. 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 TSM and MU 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 Resilience67 vs 42TSM +25
- Value45 vs 57MU +12
- Momentum21 vs 15TSM +6
- Quality98 vs 99Even
1 of 6 evidence groups favor TSM. TSM’s edge is concentrated in risk resilience and momentum; MU keeps a meaningful value 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
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 2 active signals are unchanged.
Largest factor move: Risk Resilience +2, not enough on its own to move the overall score.
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 5 active signals are unchanged.
TSM's lead widened by 1 AIQ point in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — TSM and MU 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 momentum.
MU (Micron Technology, Inc.): the counter-case, on value, fundamentals, valuation — but at materially higher volatility, 43.4% against 28.8%.
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
TSMTSM on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
MUMU on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
MUMU on the peer-relative Value factor, by 12 points.
Momentum
TSMTSM on the Momentum factor, by 6 points.
Lower downside
TSMTSM on Risk Resilience, by 25 points.
Analyst upside
MUMU on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors TSM, analyst targets favor MU. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | TSM | MU | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +36.4% | +58.5% | MU has more room |
| Target dispersion | +34% | +156.1% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 7 | 26 | 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
1 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 | Even | 58 vs 57 |
| Fundamentals | MU | revenue growth 17.6% vs 30.8%; EPS growth 8% vs 33.2%; TTM ROE 41.2% vs 91.8%; gross margin 65.8% vs 80.7%; operating margin 57.9% vs 75% |
| Valuation | MU | Value 45 vs 57 |
| Technicals | MU | Price vs 50-day -0.6% vs -7.2%; vs 200-day 7.3% vs 24% |
| Risk Resilience | TSM | Risk Resilience 67 vs 42 |
| Analyst expectations | MU | Target upside 36.4% vs 58.5% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of TSM and MU 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 1 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Only 1 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. (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 · Jun 21 – Oct 20TSM lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 1 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- TSM +1
- 58 vs 57
- 7 sessions ago
- MU +1
- 56 vs 57
- 30 sessions ago
- Level
- 72 vs 72
- 90 sessions ago
- MU +4
- 71 vs 75
The lead changed hands 9 times in this window, most recently on Oct 17 when TSM moved ahead of MU.
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
No signal that the other name lacks.
2 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only MU
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (5.39%)
- Keltner Channel Breakdown — bearish, volatility, short horizon
- RSI Oversold - Potential Bounce — bullish, momentum, short horizon
Both carry 2 more signals that do not separate them: Golden Cross Active, MACD Bearish Crossover.
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 +1.6%, AIQ +1 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +1.96%, 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.
- 1MU closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 25 points behind, the largest single contributor to TSM's edge.
- 2MU's Keltner Channel Breakdown resolves — a bearish volatility 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 — 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
MU leads on balance| Metric | TSM | MU |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 17.6% | 30.8% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 8% | 33.2% |
| Gross margin | 65.8% | 80.7% |
| Operating margin | 57.9% | 75% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 41.2% | 91.8% |
| Debt to equity | 0.14 | 0.03 |
Performance
Split across windows| Metric | TSM | MU |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -4.5% | -6% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -6% | -18.3% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 0.9% | -6.6% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 15.5% | 99.4% |
| Year to date | 39.9% | 214% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 41.8% | 358% |
Technicals
MU has the stronger structure| Metric | TSM | MU |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 36.7 | 29.1 |
| ADX (14) | 21.6 | 25.1 |
| Price vs 50-day | -0.6% | -7.2% |
| Price vs 200-day | 7.3% | 24% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 28.8% | 43.4% |
Risk
TSM is the more resilient| Metric | TSM | MU |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 2.11 | 3.34 |
| Sharpe ratio | 1.04 | 2.19 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.66 | 3.8 |
| Max drawdown | -21.6% | -39.1% |
| Current drawdown | -12.5% | -26.2% |
| Annualized volatility | 38.9% | 81.3% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -3.8% | -7% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, TSM or MU?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, TSM is the stronger of the two as of Oct 21, 2026, scoring 58 against MU's 57. The edge comes from risk resilience and momentum. MU is not without a case — it holds the better value 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 MU the better buy right now?
TSM carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 21, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 1 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: the AIQ gap is narrow at 1 points. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor TSM over MU?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. TSM leads Risk Resilience by 25 points; MU leads Value by 12 points; TSM leads Momentum by 6 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, TSM or MU?
Analyst price targets imply +36.4% upside for TSM and +58.5% for MU, so the Street currently favors MU. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors TSM. 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, TSM or MU?
MU is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. MU on the peer-relative Value factor, by 12 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 MU?
MU 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 MU?
TSM on the Momentum factor, by 6 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, TSM or MU?
TSM is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. TSM on Risk Resilience, by 25 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 TSM more profitable than MU?
MU leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 65.8% vs 80.7%; operating margin 57.9% vs 75%; ttm roe 41.2% vs 91.8%.
Is TSM's lead over MU getting stronger or weaker?
TSM lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 1 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 9 times in that window, most recently on 2026-10-17, when TSM moved ahead of MU.
What would change the TSM vs MU verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: MU closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 25 points behind, the largest single contributor to TSM's edge; MU's Keltner Channel Breakdown resolves — a bearish volatility 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 — 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 TSM and MU?
TSM: 1 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted. MU: 2 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 TSM is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On MU it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare TSM and MU 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.