TSM vs WLDN Stock Comparison
Compare TSM and WLDN across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between TSM and WLDN?
TSM leads the current stock comparison as Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited, with the clearest separation coming from quality and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited vs Willdan Group, Inc.
TSM leads
TSM leads by 12 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Momentum, having only recently taken the lead back from WLDN. Wall Street currently favors WLDN on target upside.
Competitive: 4 of 6 evidence groups support TSM, the lead recently changed hands, and its signal state is cleanly positive.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited
Willdan Group, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors TSM over WLDN, 70 versus 58 as of Sep 11, 2026. TSM's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and momentum, while WLDN holds the stronger value profile. TSM also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors WLDN. 4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor TSM today, and the comparison is rated Competitive on stability: the lead has already changed hands inside the comparison window. TSM lead: Reversed — WLDN led by 3 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; TSM now leads by 12.
Compare Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited and Willdan Group, Inc. 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 TSM and WLDN 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.
- Quality96 vs 64TSM +32
- Momentum74 vs 43TSM +31
- Value42 vs 66WLDN +24
- Risk Resilience68 vs 57TSM +11
4 of 6 evidence groups favor TSM. TSM’s edge is concentrated in quality and momentum; WLDN keeps a meaningful value edge.
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 -8
No new signals fired.
Largest factor move: Momentum -4
No new signals fired.
TSM's lead narrowed by 1 AIQ points in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — TSM and WLDN 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 momentum.
WLDN (Willdan Group, Inc.): the counter-case, on value, valuation, analyst expectations.
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
WLDNWLDN on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
WLDNWLDN on the peer-relative Value factor, by 24 points.
Momentum
TSMTSM on the Momentum factor, by 31 points.
Lower downside
TSMTSM on Risk Resilience, by 11 points.
Analyst upside
WLDNWLDN 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 WLDN. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | TSM | WLDN | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +32.2% | +33.8% | WLDN has more room |
| Target dispersion | +38.4% | 0% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 7 | 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 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 | 70 vs 58 |
| Fundamentals | TSMon balance | revenue growth 12% vs 48.9%; EPS growth 22.1% vs 179.3%; TTM ROE 39.3% vs 20.9%; gross margin 64.2% vs 37.8%; operating margin 56% vs 7.1% — TSM takes 3 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | WLDN | Value 42 vs 66 |
| Technicals | TSM | Price vs 50-day 3.4% vs 3.8%; vs 200-day 14.1% vs -11.5% |
| Risk Resilience | TSM | Risk Resilience 68 vs 57 |
| Analyst expectations | WLDN | Target upside 32.2% vs 33.8% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of TSM and WLDN 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 12 points. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The lead has already changed hands inside the comparison window. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- 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
119 daily snapshots · May 4 – Sep 10TSM lead: Reversed — WLDN led by 3 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; TSM now leads by 12.
- Today
- TSM +12
- 70 vs 58
- 7 sessions ago
- TSM +4
- 68 vs 64
- 30 sessions ago
- WLDN +3
- 63 vs 66
- 90 sessions ago
- TSM +9
- 61 vs 52
The lead changed hands 12 times in this window, most recently on Sep 3 when TSM moved ahead of WLDN.
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.
4 bullish / 0 bearish
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (11.73%)
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
1 bullish / 2 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (16.93%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- BB Lower Band Breach — bullish, volatility, short horizon
WLDN 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.
Price is up while the AIQ Score moved down 2 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price +1.22%, AIQ -2 points).
Price is up while the AIQ Score moved down 1 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price +0.33%, 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.
- 1WLDN closes the Quality gap — currently 32 points behind, the largest single contributor to TSM's edge.
- 2WLDN's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend 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 — 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
TSM leads on balance| Metric | TSM | WLDN |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 12% | 48.9% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 22.1% | 179.3% |
| Gross margin | 64.2% | 37.8% |
| Operating margin | 56% | 7.1% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 39.3% | 20.9% |
| Debt to equity | 0.15 | 0.25 |
Performance
TSM leads 6 of 6 windows| Metric | TSM | WLDN |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 3% | -6.4% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -0.3% | -3.5% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 4.7% | -15.3% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 20.7% | -2.4% |
| Year to date | 40.9% | -21% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 73.2% | -16.1% |
Technicals
TSM has the stronger structure| Metric | TSM | WLDN |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 57.7 | 38.6 |
| ADX (14) | 9.6 | 22.7 |
| Price vs 50-day | 3.4% | 3.8% |
| Price vs 200-day | 14.1% | -11.5% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 27.3% | 30.8% |
Risk
TSM is the more resilient| Metric | TSM | WLDN |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 2.17 | 1.71 |
| Sharpe ratio | 1.43 | 0.01 |
| Sortino ratio | 2.31 | 0.01 |
| Max drawdown | -21.6% | -50.4% |
| Current drawdown | -10.4% | -39.3% |
| Annualized volatility | 40.4% | 61.3% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -4.1% | -4.7% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, TSM or WLDN?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, TSM is the stronger of the two as of Sep 11, 2026, scoring 70 against WLDN's 58. The edge comes from quality and momentum. WLDN 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 WLDN the better buy right now?
TSM carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 11, 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 TSM over WLDN?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. TSM leads Quality by 32 points; TSM leads Momentum by 31 points; WLDN leads Value by 24 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, TSM or WLDN?
Analyst price targets imply +32.2% upside for TSM and +33.8% for WLDN, so the Street currently favors WLDN. 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 WLDN?
WLDN is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. WLDN on the peer-relative Value factor, by 24 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 WLDN?
WLDN 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 WLDN?
TSM on the Momentum factor, by 31 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 WLDN?
TSM is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. TSM on Risk Resilience, by 11 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 WLDN?
TSM leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 64.2% vs 37.8%; operating margin 56% vs 7.1%; ttm roe 39.3% vs 20.9%.
Is TSM's lead over WLDN getting stronger or weaker?
TSM lead: Reversed — WLDN led by 3 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; TSM now leads by 12. This is measured from 119 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-05-04 and 2026-09-10. The lead has changed hands 12 times in that window, most recently on 2026-09-03, when TSM moved ahead of WLDN.
What would change the TSM vs WLDN verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: WLDN closes the Quality gap — currently 32 points behind, the largest single contributor to TSM's edge; WLDN's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend 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 — 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 WLDN?
TSM: 4 bullish / 0 bearish. WLDN: 1 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 TSM is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On WLDN it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare TSM and WLDN 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.