TSM vs WOR Stock Comparison
Compare TSM and WOR across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between TSM and WOR?
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 Worthington Industries, Inc.
TSM leads
TSM leads by 8 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Momentum, and the lead has widened from 0 points over 30 sessions.
Stable: 4 of 6 evidence groups support TSM, its lead is widening, and its signal state is cleanly positive.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited
Worthington Industries, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors TSM over WOR, 70 versus 62 as of Sep 11, 2026. TSM's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and momentum, while WOR holds the stronger value profile. TSM also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor TSM today, and the comparison is rated Stable on stability. TSM lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 0 to 8 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited and Worthington Industries, 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 WOR 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 53TSM +43
- Value42 vs 65WOR +23
- Momentum74 vs 66TSM +8
- Risk Resilience68 vs 65Even
4 of 6 evidence groups favor TSM. TSM’s edge is concentrated in quality and momentum; WOR 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 -5
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 WOR 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.
WOR (Worthington Industries, Inc.): the counter-case, on value, valuation — but at materially higher volatility, 33.7% against 27.3%.
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
WORWOR on the peer-relative Value factor, by 23 points.
Momentum
TSMTSM on the Momentum factor, by 8 points.
Lower downside
TSMTSM carries the lower 1-month annualized volatility.
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 | WOR | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +32.2% | +15.9% | TSM has more room |
| Target dispersion | +38.4% | +3% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 7 | 2 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
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 62 |
| Fundamentals | TSM | revenue growth 12% vs -1.9%; EPS growth 22.1% vs 6.5%; TTM ROE 39.3% vs 15.8%; gross margin 64.2% vs 27.3%; operating margin 56% vs 6% |
| Valuation | WOR | Value 42 vs 65 |
| Technicals | TSM | Price vs 50-day 3.4% vs 0.3%; vs 200-day 14.1% vs 4.4% |
| Risk Resilience | Even | Risk Resilience 68 vs 65 |
| Analyst expectations | TSM | Target upside 32.2% vs 15.9% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of TSM and WOR 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 8 points.
- The leader's advantage has been widening. (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
119 daily snapshots · May 4 – Sep 10TSM lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 0 to 8 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- TSM +8
- 70 vs 62
- 7 sessions ago
- TSM +2
- 68 vs 66
- 30 sessions ago
- Level
- 63 vs 63
- 90 sessions ago
- TSM +10
- 61 vs 51
The lead changed hands 8 times in this window, most recently on Sep 4 when TSM moved ahead of WOR.
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
4 bullish / 0 bearish / 1 neutral
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (2.89%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium 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 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 and the AIQ Score both moved down over the latest session (price -1.18%, 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.
- 1WOR closes the Quality gap — currently 43 points behind, the largest single contributor to TSM's edge.
- 2WOR's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend.
- 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 | WOR |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 12% | -1.9% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 22.1% | 6.5% |
| Gross margin | 64.2% | 27.3% |
| Operating margin | 56% | 6% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 39.3% | 15.8% |
| Debt to equity | 0.15 | 0.34 |
Performance
TSM leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | TSM | WOR |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 3% | -3.2% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -0.3% | 1.2% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 4.7% | 0.2% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 20.7% | 16.8% |
| Year to date | 40.9% | 11.7% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 73.2% | -11.2% |
Technicals
TSM has the stronger structure| Metric | TSM | WOR |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 57.7 | 54.4 |
| ADX (14) | 9.6 | 19.3 |
| Price vs 50-day | 3.4% | 0.3% |
| Price vs 200-day | 14.1% | 4.4% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 27.3% | 33.7% |
Risk
Split| Metric | TSM | WOR |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 2.17 | 0.88 |
| Sharpe ratio | 1.43 | -0.27 |
| Sortino ratio | 2.31 | -0.33 |
| Max drawdown | -21.6% | -28.3% |
| Current drawdown | -10.4% | -12% |
| Annualized volatility | 40.4% | 31.3% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -4.1% | -3.4% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, TSM or WOR?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, TSM is the stronger of the two as of Sep 11, 2026, scoring 70 against WOR's 62. The edge comes from quality and momentum. WOR 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 WOR the better buy right now?
TSM carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 11, 2026, and the comparison is rated Stable — 4 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 WOR?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. TSM leads Quality by 43 points; WOR leads Value by 23 points; TSM leads Momentum by 8 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, TSM or WOR?
Analyst price targets imply +32.2% upside for TSM and +15.9% for WOR, 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 WOR?
WOR is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. WOR on the peer-relative Value factor, by 23 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 WOR?
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 WOR?
TSM on the Momentum factor, by 8 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 WOR?
TSM is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. TSM carries the lower 1-month annualized volatility. 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 WOR?
TSM leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 64.2% vs 27.3%; operating margin 56% vs 6%; ttm roe 39.3% vs 15.8%.
Is TSM's lead over WOR getting stronger or weaker?
TSM lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 0 to 8 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 119 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-05-04 and 2026-09-10. The lead has changed hands 8 times in that window, most recently on 2026-09-04, when TSM moved ahead of WOR.
What would change the TSM vs WOR verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: WOR closes the Quality gap — currently 43 points behind, the largest single contributor to TSM's edge; WOR's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend; 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 WOR?
TSM: 4 bullish / 0 bearish. WOR: 4 bullish / 0 bearish / 1 neutral. The most decision-relevant rule on TSM is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On WOR it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare TSM and WOR 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.