Verdict: Side-by-side breakdown using the Bull Rankings model. AVGO scored 71.0, TSM scored 72.6 — TSM leads.
Compare another set
AVGO
Broadcom Inc.
Semiconductors · Quality-Growth
71
$361.54 · $1.7T
fundamentals as of
Score gap
1.6
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)
AVGO
stronger →← stronger
TSM
82
Qualityreturns · margins · balance sheet
89
94
Growthrevenue & earnings expansion
94
46
Valuevaluation vs sector peers
63
TSM is stronger on 2 of 3 pillars.
Fundamentals, head-to-head
AVGO
TSM
$39.4bA
FCF
$35.2bA
+23.9%A-
Rev
+31.6%A
0.60C+
D/E
0.17B+
46.2xC+
P/E
33.3xB
0.36A
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
AVGO
TSM
167% above
Price vs fair valuelower is cheaper
243% above
~42%/yr
Growth the price impliesyr-1 FCF growth, fading to 4% · lower = less priced in
~49%/yr
-71%
1-yr DCF upside
-77%
-63%
5-yr DCF upside
-71%
-48%
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
AVGO
Why this score
Raising its dividend
TSM
Why this score
Raising its dividend
Durable high returns
Foreign reporter (TWD)
The companies
AVGOBroadcom Inc.
Semiconductors · $361.54 · beta 1.48
Why now
Semiconductors · market cap $1.7T. Down 27% from 52-week high of $495.00 — deep drawdown territory. Revenue growing +24%, comfortably above the S&P median. PEG 0.36 — paying under fair value for the growth rate. 47 sell-side analysts rate this a Strong Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $531.31 (implying +47% upside).
Moat
Net margin 43% is exceptional — pricing-power territory rare outside premium software, branded staples, and specialty pharma. ROE 44% — top-decile capital efficiency. Either pricing leverage, low capital intensity, or aggressive buybacks; the durability story depends on which. FCF converts 103% of net income — earnings translate cleanly into cash.
Risk
Beta 1.48 implies above-market volatility — position-size to the drawdowns this name will produce in a market correction, not to its bull-case return. Trailing P/E 46x sits well above the S&P median (~20x) — multiple compression is a real risk if revenue growth decelerates. P/S 19.4x embeds aggressive forward growth — disappointing top-line guidance would compress the multiple hard.
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 AVGO and TSM diverge
On the headline score the gap is 1.6 points in favor of TSM. The widest single difference is Value, where TSM leads by 16.9 points.
ValueAVGO 46.0 · TSM 62.9TSM +16.9
QualityAVGO 82.5 · TSM 89.3TSM +6.8
GrowthAVGO 94.3 · TSM 93.6level
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 AVGO the better stock?
TSM scores higher: TSM 72.6, AVGO 71.0 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 AVGO differ most?
The widest gap is value, where TSM leads by 17 points on the 0–100 pillar scale. TSM also leads quality, while growth is effectively level between them.
How are TSM and AVGO 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.