TSM vs WM Stock Comparison
Compare TSM vs WM on performance, valuation, growth, fundamentals, momentum and risk; the current AIQ evidence does not show a clear headline leader.
What is the main difference between TSM and WM?
TSM and WM are close on the current AIQ evidence, so the better fit depends more on objective, risk tolerance and valuation preference than on a single headline score.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited vs Waste Management, Inc.
TSM and WM are effectively level
TSM and WM are effectively level on the AIQ Score; the factor table below shows where each one holds its advantage.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited
Waste Management, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score does not currently separate TSM and WM as of Oct 22, 2026. Both names are scored on the same 0–100 scale across Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience, and the factor table below shows where each one holds its advantage.
Compare Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited and Waste Management, 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 WM 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.
- Momentum21 vs 89WM +68
- Quality98 vs 45TSM +53
- Risk Resilience67 vs 51TSM +16
- Value45 vs 48Even
Neither name separates cleanly on the covered dimensions.
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: Momentum +1, 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.
WM's lead narrowed by 1 AIQ point in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — TSM and WM both carry a full feed there.
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
EvenNeither separates on the overall score.
Growth
TSMTSM on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
EvenThe two are level on Value.
Momentum
WMWM on the Momentum factor, by 68 points.
Lower downside
TSMTSM on Risk Resilience, by 16 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 | WM | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +36.4% | +2.1% | TSM has more room |
| Target dispersion | +34% | +8.1% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 7 | 1 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
Dividend growth
| Dividend metric | TSM | WM |
|---|---|---|
| 5Y dividend CAGR | 15.29% | 8.65% |
| 2020 regular DPS | $1.360 | $2.180 |
| 2025 regular DPS | $2.769 | $3.300 |
| Years increased | 4 | 5 |
| No cut in window | No (1) | Yes |
| Cohort rank | not ranked | #129 |
TSM grew its split-adjusted regular dividend faster over 2020–2025 — 15.29% a year against WM's 8.65%. WM never reduced its regular dividend in the window; TSM did in 1 year.
Yield and payout ratio shown elsewhere on this page are current values, not part of the study window.
Split-adjusted regular dividends per share, 2020–2025, excluding special dividends. Research as of Sep 19, 2026.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
How each independent group of evidence reads the pair.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | Even | 58 vs 58 |
| Fundamentals | TSMon balance | revenue growth 17.6% vs 7.3%; EPS growth 8% vs 9.5%; TTM ROE 41.2% vs 28.9%; gross margin 65.8% vs 35%; operating margin 57.9% vs 18.5% — TSM takes 4 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | Even | Value 45 vs 48 |
| Technicals | WM | Price vs 50-day -0.6% vs 6.1%; vs 200-day 7.3% vs 3.2% |
| Risk Resilience | TSM | Risk Resilience 67 vs 51 |
| Analyst expectations | TSM | Target upside 36.4% vs 2.1% |
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 0 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Only 0 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The leader's advantage has been narrowing. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The lead has swung materially session to session. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20TSM lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 30 to 0 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- Level
- 58 vs 58
- 7 sessions ago
- TSM +1
- 56 vs 55
- 30 sessions ago
- TSM +30
- 72 vs 42
- 90 sessions ago
- TSM +28
- 71 vs 43
The lead changed hands 4 times in this window, most recently on Oct 19 when WM moved ahead of TSM.
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
Only TSM
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (9.68%)
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
2 bullish / 3 bearish, conflicted
Only WM
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (3.82%)
- BB Upper Band Breach — bearish, volatility, short horizon
- Keltner Channel Breakout — bullish, volatility, short horizon
- RSI Overbought — bearish, momentum, short horizon
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
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 -0.93%, AIQ 0 points).
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 | WM |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 17.6% | 7.3% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 8% | 9.5% |
| Gross margin | 65.8% | 35% |
| Operating margin | 57.9% | 18.5% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 41.2% | 28.9% |
| Debt to equity | 0.14 | 2.35 |
Performance
TSM leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | TSM | WM |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -4.5% | 6.9% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -6% | 10.8% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 0.9% | -2% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 15.5% | 3.7% |
| Year to date | 39.9% | 5.5% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 41.8% | 7.1% |
Technicals
WM has the stronger structure| Metric | TSM | WM |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 36.7 | 80.7 |
| ADX (14) | 21.6 | 24.9 |
| Price vs 50-day | -0.6% | 6.1% |
| Price vs 200-day | 7.3% | 3.2% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 28.8% | 19.5% |
Risk
TSM is the more resilient| Metric | TSM | WM |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 2.11 | -0.42 |
| Sharpe ratio | 1.04 | 0.27 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.66 | 0.4 |
| Max drawdown | -21.6% | -18.1% |
| Current drawdown | -12.5% | -6% |
| Annualized volatility | 38.9% | 20.9% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -3.8% | -1.7% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which has more analyst upside, TSM or WM?
Analyst price targets imply +36.4% upside for TSM and +2.1% for WM, so the Street currently favors TSM. Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions, and dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
Which is better value, TSM or WM?
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 WM?
TSM 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 WM?
WM on the Momentum factor, by 68 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 WM?
TSM is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. TSM on Risk Resilience, by 16 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 WM?
TSM leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 65.8% vs 35%; operating margin 57.9% vs 18.5%; ttm roe 41.2% vs 28.9%.
What do the current signals say about TSM and WM?
TSM: 1 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted. WM: 2 bullish / 3 bearish, 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 WM it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare TSM and WM 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.