TSM vs WFC Stock Comparison
TSM currently leads WFC in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 58 vs 56. The clearest difference is quality, while WFC has the stronger momentum profile.
What is the main difference between TSM and WFC?
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 Wells Fargo & Company
TSM leads
TSM leads by 2 AIQ points, primarily on Quality, but the lead has narrowed from 29 points over 30 sessions.
Fragile: 3 of 6 evidence groups support TSM, its lead is narrowing, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited
Wells Fargo & Company
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors TSM over WFC, 58 versus 56 as of Oct 21, 2026. TSM's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality, while WFC holds the stronger momentum profile. TSM also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor TSM today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 2 points. TSM lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 29 to 2 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited and Wells Fargo & Company 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 WFC 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.
- Quality98 vs 53TSM +45
- Momentum21 vs 49WFC +28
- Value45 vs 56WFC +11
- Risk Resilience67 vs 77WFC +10
3 of 6 evidence groups favor TSM. TSM’s edge is concentrated in quality; WFC keeps a meaningful momentum 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: Momentum +2, not enough on its own to move the overall score.
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 3 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 WFC both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
TSM (Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality.
WFC (Wells Fargo & Company): the counter-case, on momentum, value, risk resilience.
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
TSMTSM on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
WFCWFC on the peer-relative Value factor, by 11 points.
Momentum
WFCWFC on the Momentum factor, by 28 points.
Lower downside
WFCWFC on Risk Resilience, by 10 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 | WFC | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +36.4% | +17.9% | TSM has more room |
| Target dispersion | +34% | +12.3% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 7 | 7 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
Dividend growth
| Dividend metric | TSM | WFC |
|---|---|---|
| 5Y dividend CAGR | 15.29% | 6.86% |
| 2020 regular DPS | $1.360 | $1.220 |
| 2025 regular DPS | $2.769 | $1.700 |
| Years increased | 4 | 4 |
| No cut in window | No (1) | No (1) |
| Cohort rank | not ranked | not ranked |
TSM grew its split-adjusted regular dividend faster over 2020–2025 — 15.29% a year against WFC's 6.86%. They are ranked in different cohorts — US dividend-paying corporations and variable-dividend payers — so their ranks are not comparable with each other.
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
3 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 56 |
| Fundamentals | TSM | EPS growth 8% vs -6.4%; TTM ROE 41.2% vs 12.9%; gross margin 65.8% vs 63.9%; operating margin 57.9% vs 21.1% |
| Valuation | WFC | Value 45 vs 56 |
| Technicals | TSM | Price vs 50-day -0.6% vs -3%; vs 200-day 7.3% vs -2.2% |
| Risk Resilience | WFC | Risk Resilience 67 vs 77 |
| Analyst expectations | TSM | Target upside 36.4% vs 17.9% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of TSM and WFC 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)
- Only 3 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)
- 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: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 29 to 2 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- TSM +2
- 58 vs 56
- 7 sessions ago
- TSM +8
- 56 vs 48
- 30 sessions ago
- TSM +29
- 72 vs 43
- 90 sessions ago
- TSM +16
- 71 vs 55
The lead changed hands 3 times in this window, most recently on Jul 29 when TSM moved ahead of WFC.
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
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
2 bullish / 0 bearish / 1 neutral
Only WFC
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
Both carry 1 more signal that do not separate them: Golden Cross Active.
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 +0.27%, 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.
- 1WFC closes the Quality gap — currently 45 points behind, the largest single contributor to TSM's edge.
- 2WFC's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend.
- 3TSM's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once.
- 4The narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 27 points over 30 sessions, and a further 2-point move would eliminate TSM's advantage entirely.
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 | WFC |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 17.6% | -1% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 8% | -6.4% |
| Gross margin | 65.8% | 63.9% |
| Operating margin | 57.9% | 21.1% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 41.2% | 12.9% |
| Debt to equity | 0.14 | 1.26 |
Performance
TSM leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | TSM | WFC |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -4.5% | 1.8% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -6% | -1.1% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 0.9% | -4.9% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 15.5% | 0.8% |
| Year to date | 39.9% | -11.8% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 41.8% | -2.1% |
Technicals
TSM has the stronger structure| Metric | TSM | WFC |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 36.7 | 57.5 |
| ADX (14) | 21.6 | 20.4 |
| Price vs 50-day | -0.6% | -3% |
| Price vs 200-day | 7.3% | -2.2% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 28.8% | 24.7% |
Risk
WFC is the more resilient| Metric | TSM | WFC |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 2.11 | 0.71 |
| Sharpe ratio | 1.04 | -0.07 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.66 | -0.1 |
| Max drawdown | -21.6% | -23.8% |
| Current drawdown | -12.5% | -14.7% |
| Annualized volatility | 38.9% | 25.8% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -3.8% | -2.7% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, TSM or WFC?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, TSM is the stronger of the two as of Oct 21, 2026, scoring 58 against WFC's 56. The edge comes from quality. WFC 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 WFC the better buy right now?
TSM carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 21, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 3 of 6 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 WFC?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. TSM leads Quality by 45 points; WFC leads Momentum by 28 points; WFC leads Value by 11 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, TSM or WFC?
Analyst price targets imply +36.4% upside for TSM and +17.9% for WFC, 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 WFC?
WFC is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. WFC 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 WFC?
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 WFC?
WFC on the Momentum factor, by 28 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 WFC?
WFC is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. WFC on Risk Resilience, by 10 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 WFC?
TSM leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 65.8% vs 63.9%; operating margin 57.9% vs 21.1%; ttm roe 41.2% vs 12.9%.
Is TSM's lead over WFC getting stronger or weaker?
TSM lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 29 to 2 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 3 times in that window, most recently on 2026-07-29, when TSM moved ahead of WFC.
What would change the TSM vs WFC verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: WFC closes the Quality gap — currently 45 points behind, the largest single contributor to TSM's edge; WFC's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend; TSM's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once; the narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 27 points over 30 sessions, and a further 2-point move would eliminate TSM's advantage entirely.
What do the current signals say about TSM and WFC?
TSM: 1 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted. WFC: 2 bullish / 0 bearish / 1 neutral. 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 WFC it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare TSM and WFC 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.