Verdict: Side-by-side breakdown using the Bull Rankings model. QCOM scored 40.4, TSM scored 72.6 — TSM leads.
Compare another set
QCOM
QUALCOMM Incorporated
Semiconductors · Quality-Growth
40.4
$175.50 · $187.4B
fundamentals as of
Score gap
32.2
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
CheapestQCOM20.3x
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)
QCOM
stronger →← stronger
TSM
88
Qualityreturns · margins · balance sheet
89
25
Growthrevenue & earnings expansion
94
30
Valuevaluation vs sector peers
63
TSM is stronger on 3 of 3 pillars.
Fundamentals, head-to-head
QCOM
TSM
$10.4bA-
FCF
$35.2bA
+1.9%C
Rev
+31.6%A
0.55C+
D/E
0.17B+
20.3xB+
P/E
33.3xB
—
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
QCOM
TSM
91% above
Price vs fair valuelower is cheaper
243% above
~20%/yr
Growth the price impliesyr-1 FCF growth, fading to 4% · lower = less priced in
~49%/yr
-46%
1-yr DCF upside
-77%
-48%
5-yr DCF upside
-71%
-49%
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
QCOM
Why this score
Buying back stock
Durable high returns
TSM
Why this score
Raising its dividend
Durable high returns
Foreign reporter (TWD)
The companies
QCOMQUALCOMM Incorporated
Semiconductors · $175.50 · beta 1.65
Why now
Semiconductors · market cap $187.4b. Down 32% from 52-week high of $259.92 — deep drawdown territory. 30 sell-side analysts rate this a Hold with a mean 1-yr target of $194.13 (implying +11% upside).
Moat
Net margin 21% sits well above the S&P median (~11%) — suggests structural pricing advantage or cost discipline competitors can't quickly close. ROE 33% — top-decile capital efficiency. Either pricing leverage, low capital intensity, or aggressive buybacks; the durability story depends on which. FCF converts 112% of net income — earnings translate cleanly into cash.
Risk
Down 32% from the 52-week high — the market is pricing in something the screen can't see; verify the bear case before sizing up. Beta 1.65 implies above-market volatility — position-size to the drawdowns this name will produce in a market correction, not to its bull-case return. 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 QCOM and TSM diverge
On the headline score the gap is 32.2 points in favor of TSM. The widest single difference is Growth, where TSM leads by 68.3 points.
GrowthQCOM 25.3 · TSM 93.6TSM +68.3
ValueQCOM 29.8 · TSM 62.9TSM +33.1
QualityQCOM 87.6 · TSM 89.3level
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 QCOM the better stock?
TSM scores higher: TSM 72.6, QCOM 40.4 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 QCOM differ most?
The widest gap is growth, where TSM leads by 68 points on the 0–100 pillar scale. TSM also leads value, while quality is effectively level between them.
How are TSM and QCOM 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.