Verdict: Side-by-side breakdown using the Bull Rankings model. ADI scored 60.3, TSM scored 72.6 — TSM leads.
Compare another set
ADI
Analog Devices, Inc.
Semiconductors · Quality-Growth
60.3
$406.19 · $196.8B
fundamentals as of
Score gap
12.3
TSM leads
TSM
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited
Semiconductors · Quality-Growth
72.6
$453.31 · $2.4T
fundamentals as of
At a glance · who leads each dimension, on the model's own rules
CheapestTSM33.3x
Fastest growthTSM+31.6%
Strongest balance sheetTSM0.17
Highest qualityTSM89 / 100
Side by side · every name on one set of axes
Growth against the P/E multiple. Up and to the right is cheaper and faster — the quality-growth idea in one picture. Points beyond the axis are pinned to the edge and marked off-scale rather than allowed to compress everything else.
The model, pillar by pillar (0–100 each)
ADI
stronger →← stronger
TSM
72
Qualityreturns · margins · balance sheet
89
89
Growthrevenue & earnings expansion
94
34
Valuevaluation vs sector peers
63
TSM is stronger on 3 of 3 pillars.
Fundamentals, head-to-head
ADI
TSM
$4.9bB
FCF
$35.2bA
+16.9%B+
Rev
+31.6%A
0.27B
D/E
0.17B+
48.2xC+
P/E
33.3xB
0.61A-
PEG
0.87B+
Winner per row is the stronger grade; where grades tie, the better figure breaks it. A true tie or a missing value shows no highlight.
Valuation · DCF cross-check
ADI
TSM
140% above
Price vs fair valuelower is cheaper
243% above
~34%/yr
Growth the price impliesyr-1 FCF growth, fading to 4% · lower = less priced in
~49%/yr
-65%
1-yr DCF upside
-77%
-58%
5-yr DCF upside
-71%
-47%
10-yr DCF upside
-58%
These two disagree on this pair: the Value pillar ranks cheapness against sector peers, while price-vs-fair-value is an absolute read. A name can be the better value in its sector and still the dearer one on cash flows.
The DCF is a cross-check on intrinsic value, separate from the quality-growth score above.
Model signals
ADI
Why this score
Raising its dividend
TSM
Why this score
Raising its dividend
Durable high returns
Foreign reporter (TWD)
The companies
ADIAnalog Devices, Inc.
Semiconductors · $406.19 · beta 1.23
Why now
Semiconductors · market cap $196.8b. 9% off the 52-week high of $445.91. Revenue growing +17%, comfortably above the S&P median. PEG 0.61 — paying under fair value for the growth rate. 32 sell-side analysts rate this a Strong Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $470.72 (implying +16% upside).
Moat
Net margin 30% sits well above the S&P median (~11%) — suggests structural pricing advantage or cost discipline competitors can't quickly close. ROE 12% meets the long-run market sustainable threshold — solid but not differentiated; the durability comes from elsewhere. FCF converts 119% of net income — earnings translate cleanly into cash.
Risk
Trailing P/E 48x sits well above the S&P median (~20x) — multiple compression is a real risk if revenue growth decelerates. P/S 14.2x embeds aggressive forward growth — disappointing top-line guidance would compress the multiple hard. Semiconductor cyclicality — inventory corrections compress margins faster than analysts model. Monitor channel inventory and book-to-bill ratios as leading indicators.
TSMTaiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited
Semiconductors · $453.31 · beta 1.24
Why now
Semiconductors · market cap $2.4T. 7% off the 52-week high of $487.47. Revenue growing +32% — in hypergrowth territory. PEG 0.87 — paying under fair value for the growth rate. 20 sell-side analysts rate this a Strong Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $555.01 (implying +22% upside).
Moat
Net margin 50% is exceptional — pricing-power territory rare outside premium software, branded staples, and specialty pharma. ROE 40% — top-decile capital efficiency. Either pricing leverage, low capital intensity, or aggressive buybacks; the durability story depends on which. $2.4T market cap places it among the largest companies in the sector — distribution, R&D, and customer-acquisition costs amortize across a base peers can't replicate.
Risk
Trailing P/E 33x sits well above the S&P median (~20x) — multiple compression is a real risk if revenue growth decelerates. P/S 16.9x embeds aggressive forward growth — disappointing top-line guidance would compress the multiple hard. Semiconductor cyclicality — inventory corrections compress margins faster than analysts model. Monitor channel inventory and book-to-bill ratios as leading indicators.
Verdict — model-derived comparison
Generating verdict… typically 5–10 seconds
Not investment advice. The Bull Rankings publishes a quantitative ranking model and accompanying analysis for general informational purposes only. Nothing on this page is a recommendation to buy, sell, or hold any security; nothing is personalized to your circumstances, risk tolerance, or tax situation. Investing carries the risk of loss — invest at your own risk and consider consulting a licensed financial professional before acting on anything you read here. See terms and methodology for full disclosures.
Where ADI and TSM diverge
On the headline score the gap is 12.3 points in favor of TSM. The widest single difference is Value, where TSM leads by 28.6 points.
ValueADI 34.3 · TSM 62.9TSM +28.6
QualityADI 72.2 · TSM 89.3TSM +17.1
GrowthADI 88.6 · TSM 93.6TSM +5.0
Pillars run 0–100. Value is judged against each company's own sector, so a Value score is a statement about a company relative to its own industry rather than to the other name here. A wide Value gap usually means the market already prices the difference in quality or growth — which is the trade-off this comparison comes down to.
Common questions
Is TSM or ADI the better stock?
TSM scores higher: TSM 72.6, ADI 60.3 out of 100 on the Bull Rankings quality-growth score, which blends business quality, growth and valuation into one number. A higher score means a stronger business at a more reasonable price — it is not a price target or a recommendation.
Where do TSM and ADI differ most?
The widest gap is value, where TSM leads by 29 points on the 0–100 pillar scale. TSM leads all three pillars, so the gap is broad rather than a single-measure difference.
How are TSM and ADI scored?
Each carries the same 0–100 quality-growth score used everywhere on the site, built from three pillars — quality (profitability and returns on capital), growth (revenue and earnings), and value (what you pay for them) — combined as a geometric mean, so a weak pillar cannot be papered over by a strong one.
How current is this comparison?
The whole universe is re-scored every trading day after the US market close, so the scores and fundamentals here reflect the latest published edition.