Semiconductors
Compare Stocks
3 / 10Stock Comparison
UMC vs TSM vs GFS
Revenue, margins, valuation, and 5-year total return — side by side.
Semiconductors
Semiconductors
UMC vs TSM vs GFS — Key Financials
Market cap, revenue, margins, and valuation side-by-side.
| Company Snapshot | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Industry | Semiconductors | Semiconductors | Semiconductors |
| Market Cap | $37.96B | $2.18T | $40.23B |
| Revenue (TTM) | $240.73B | $3.82T | $6.79B |
| Net Income (TTM) | $50.11B | $1.72T | $885M |
| Gross Margin | 29.6% | 59.9% | 25.2% |
| Operating Margin | 18.9% | 50.8% | 11.7% |
| Forward P/E | 22.3x | 0.8x | 39.2x |
| Total Debt | $59.78B | $990.36B | $1.64B |
| Cash & Equiv. | $110.66B | $2.76T | $1.81B |
UMC vs TSM vs GFS — Long-Term Stock Performance
Price return indexed to 100 at period start. Dividends excluded.
| Stock | Oct 21 | May 26 | Return |
|---|---|---|---|
| United Microelectro… (UMC) | 100 | 148.2 | +48.2% |
| Taiwan Semiconducto… (TSM) | 100 | 369.0 | +269.0% |
| GLOBALFOUNDRIES Inc. (GFS) | 100 | 148.3 | +48.3% |
Price return only. Dividends and distributions are not included.
Quick Verdict: UMC vs TSM vs GFS
Each card shows where this stock fits in a portfolio — not just who wins on paper.
UMC is the clearest fit if your priority is income & stability and defensive.
- Dividend streak 0 yrs, beta 0.90, yield 3.0%
- Beta 0.90, yield 3.0%, current ratio 2.34x
- Beta 0.90 vs TSM's 1.91, lower leverage
TSM carries the broadest edge in this set and is the clearest fit for growth exposure and long-term compounding.
- Rev growth 33.0%, EPS growth 49.8%, 3Y rev CAGR 19.3%
- 17.6% 10Y total return vs UMC's 9.2%
- PEG 0.03 vs UMC's 3.06
GFS is the clearest fit if your priority is sleep-well-at-night.
- Lower volatility, beta 1.85, Low D/E 13.7%, current ratio 2.62x
See the full category breakdown
| Category | Winner | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Growth | 33.0% revenue growth vs GFS's 0.6% | |
| Value | Lower P/E (0.8x vs 39.2x) | |
| Quality / Margins | 45.1% margin vs GFS's 13.0% | |
| Stability / Safety | Beta 0.90 vs TSM's 1.91, lower leverage | |
| Dividends | 3.0% yield, vs TSM's 0.7%, (1 stock pays no dividend) | |
| Momentum (1Y) | +145.4% vs GFS's +107.1% | |
| Efficiency (ROA) | 21.8% ROA vs GFS's 5.3%, ROIC 42.7% vs 5.3% |
UMC vs TSM vs GFS — Revenue Breakdown by Segment
How each company's revenue is distributed across its business units
UMC vs TSM vs GFS — Financial Metrics
Side-by-side numbers across 3 stocks — who leads on profitability, valuation, growth, and risk.
Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
TSM leads this category, winning 5 of 6 comparable metrics.
Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
TSM is the larger business by revenue, generating $3.82T annually — 562.4x GFS's $6.8B. TSM is the more profitable business, keeping 45.1% of every revenue dollar as net income compared to GFS's 13.0%. On growth, TSM holds the edge at +21.6% YoY revenue growth, suggesting stronger near-term business momentum.
| Metric | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| RevenueTrailing 12 months | $240.7B | $3.82T | $6.8B |
| EBITDAEarnings before interest/tax | $106.8B | $2.79T | $2.1B |
| Net IncomeAfter-tax profit | $50.1B | $1.72T | $885M |
| Free Cash FlowCash after capex | $50.1B | $1.02T | $1.0B |
| Gross MarginGross profit ÷ Revenue | +29.6% | +59.9% | +25.2% |
| Operating MarginEBIT ÷ Revenue | +18.9% | +50.8% | +11.7% |
| Net MarginNet income ÷ Revenue | +20.8% | +45.1% | +13.0% |
| FCF MarginFCF ÷ Revenue | +20.8% | +26.7% | +14.9% |
| Rev. Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | +5.5% | +21.6% | 0.0% |
| EPS Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | +109.7% | +42.0% | +127.3% |
Valuation Metrics
UMC leads this category, winning 5 of 7 comparable metrics.
Valuation Metrics
At 28.7x trailing earnings, UMC trades at a 37% valuation discount to GFS's 45.5x P/E. Adjusting for growth (PEG ratio), TSM offers better value at 1.42x vs UMC's 3.94x — a lower PEG means you pay less per unit of expected earnings growth.
| Metric | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Market CapShares × price | $38.0B | $2.18T | $40.2B |
| Enterprise ValueMkt cap + debt − cash | $36.3B | $2.12T | $40.1B |
| Trailing P/EPrice ÷ TTM EPS | 28.70x | 39.49x | 45.47x |
| Forward P/EPrice ÷ next-FY EPS est. | 22.31x | 0.84x | 39.24x |
| PEG RatioP/E ÷ EPS growth rate | 3.94x | 1.42x | — |
| EV / EBITDAEnterprise value multiple | 11.06x | 25.19x | 18.98x |
| Price / SalesMarket cap ÷ Revenue | 5.03x | 17.81x | 5.92x |
| Price / BookPrice ÷ Book value/share | 3.15x | 12.58x | 3.37x |
| Price / FCFMarket cap ÷ FCF | 22.81x | 62.44x | 39.87x |
Profitability & Efficiency
TSM leads this category, winning 7 of 9 comparable metrics.
Profitability & Efficiency
TSM delivers a 31.6% return on equity — every $100 of shareholder capital generates $32 in annual profit, vs $8 for GFS. GFS carries lower financial leverage with a 0.14x debt-to-equity ratio, signaling a more conservative balance sheet compared to TSM's 0.18x. On the Piotroski fundamental quality scale (0–9), TSM scores 8/9 vs UMC's 5/9, reflecting strong financial health.
| Metric | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| ROE (TTM)Return on equity | +13.5% | +31.6% | +7.6% |
| ROA (TTM)Return on assets | +8.8% | +21.8% | +5.3% |
| ROICReturn on invested capital | +10.0% | +42.7% | +5.3% |
| ROCEReturn on capital employed | +9.0% | +33.0% | +5.6% |
| Piotroski ScoreFundamental quality 0–9 | 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Debt / EquityFinancial leverage | 0.16x | 0.18x | 0.14x |
| Net DebtTotal debt minus cash | -$50.9B | -$1.77T | -$171M |
| Cash & Equiv.Liquid assets | $110.7B | $2.76T | $1.8B |
| Total DebtShort + long-term debt | $59.8B | $990.4B | $1.6B |
| Interest CoverageEBIT ÷ Interest expense | 37.36x | 315.91x | — |
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
TSM leads this category, winning 5 of 6 comparable metrics.
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
A $10,000 investment in TSM five years ago would be worth $36,674 today (with dividends reinvested), compared to $15,582 for GFS. Over the past 12 months, TSM leads with a +145.4% total return vs GFS's +107.1%. The 3-year compound annual growth rate (CAGR) favors TSM at 70.8% vs GFS's 6.5% — a key indicator of consistent wealth creation.
| Metric | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| YTD ReturnYear-to-date | +94.1% | +31.6% | +96.1% |
| 1-Year ReturnPast 12 months | +112.2% | +145.4% | +107.1% |
| 3-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +104.5% | +398.2% | +20.9% |
| 5-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +88.3% | +266.7% | +55.8% |
| 10-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +915.2% | +1759.4% | +55.8% |
| CAGR (3Y)Annualised 3-year return | +26.9% | +70.8% | +6.5% |
Risk & Volatility
Evenly matched — UMC and TSM each lead in 1 of 2 comparable metrics.
Risk & Volatility
UMC is the less volatile stock with a 0.90 beta — it tends to amplify market swings less than TSM's 1.91 beta. A beta below 1.0 means the stock typically moves less than the S&P 500. TSM currently trades 100.0% from its 52-week high vs GFS's 95.7% drawdown — a narrower gap to the peak suggests stronger recent price momentum.
| Metric | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Beta (5Y)Sensitivity to S&P 500 | 0.90x | 1.91x | 1.85x |
| 52-Week HighHighest price in past year | $15.41 | $419.58 | $75.53 |
| 52-Week LowLowest price in past year | $6.56 | $170.59 | $31.51 |
| % of 52W HighCurrent price vs 52-week peak | +98.7% | +100.0% | +95.7% |
| RSI (14)Momentum oscillator 0–100 | 74.8 | 60.0 | 86.0 |
| Avg Volume (50D)Average daily shares traded | 9.8M | 13.2M | 4.0M |
Analyst Outlook
Evenly matched — UMC and TSM each lead in 1 of 2 comparable metrics.
Analyst Outlook
Analyst consensus: UMC as "Hold", TSM as "Buy", GFS as "Buy". Consensus price targets imply 1.9% upside for TSM (target: $428) vs -43.5% for UMC (target: $9). For income investors, UMC offers the higher dividend yield at 3.01% vs TSM's 0.69%.
| Metric | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Analyst RatingConsensus buy/hold/sell | Hold | Buy | Buy |
| Price TargetConsensus 12-month target | $8.60 | $427.50 | $51.14 |
| # AnalystsCovering analysts | 15 | 25 | 19 |
| Dividend YieldAnnual dividend ÷ price | +3.0% | +0.7% | — |
| Dividend StreakConsecutive years of raises | 0 | 5 | — |
| Dividend / ShareAnnual DPS | $14.41 | $90.94 | — |
| Buyback YieldShare repurchases ÷ mkt cap | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
TSM leads in 3 of 6 categories (Income & Cash Flow, Profitability & Efficiency). UMC leads in 1 (Valuation Metrics). 2 tied.
UMC vs TSM vs GFS: Key Questions Answered
10 questions · data-driven answers · updated daily
01Is UMC or TSM or GFS a better buy right now?
For growth investors, Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited (TSM) is the stronger pick with 33.
0% revenue growth year-over-year, versus 0. 6% for GLOBALFOUNDRIES Inc. (GFS). United Microelectronics Corporation (UMC) offers the better valuation at 28. 7x trailing P/E (22. 3x forward), making it the more compelling value choice. Analysts rate Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited (TSM) a "Buy" — based on 25 analyst ratings — the highest consensus in this comparison. The "better buy" depends entirely on your goals: growth investors should weight revenue trajectory, value investors should weight P/E and PEG, and income investors should weight dividend yield and streak.
02Which has the better valuation — UMC or TSM or GFS?
On trailing P/E, United Microelectronics Corporation (UMC) is the cheapest at 28.
7x versus GLOBALFOUNDRIES Inc. at 45. 5x. On forward P/E, Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited is actually cheaper at 0. 8x — notably different from the trailing picture, reflecting expected earnings growth. The PEG ratio (P/E divided by earnings growth rate) is the most growth-adjusted single valuation metric: Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited wins at 0. 03x versus United Microelectronics Corporation's 3. 06x — a PEG below 1. 0 traditionally signals the market is underpricing earnings growth.
03Which is the better long-term investment — UMC or TSM or GFS?
Over the past 5 years, Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited (TSM) delivered a total return of +266.
7%, compared to +55. 8% for GLOBALFOUNDRIES Inc. (GFS). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: TSM returned +1759% versus GFS's +55. 8%. Past returns do not guarantee future results, and the stock with the higher historical return may already have its best growth priced in.
04Which is safer — UMC or TSM or GFS?
By beta (market sensitivity over 5 years), United Microelectronics Corporation (UMC) is the lower-risk stock at 0.
90β versus Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited's 1. 91β — meaning TSM is approximately 112% more volatile than UMC relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, GLOBALFOUNDRIES Inc. (GFS) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 14% versus 18% for Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.
05Which is growing faster — UMC or TSM or GFS?
By revenue growth (latest reported year), Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited (TSM) is pulling ahead at 33.
0% versus 0. 6% for GLOBALFOUNDRIES Inc. (GFS). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: GLOBALFOUNDRIES Inc. grew EPS 431. 3% year-over-year, compared to -10. 7% for United Microelectronics Corporation. Over a 3-year CAGR, TSM leads at 19. 3% annualised revenue growth. Higher growth typically commands a higher valuation multiple — check whether the premium P/E or P/S is justified by the growth rate using the PEG ratio.
06Which has better profit margins — UMC or TSM or GFS?
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited (TSM) is the more profitable company, earning 45.
1% net margin versus 13. 0% for GLOBALFOUNDRIES Inc. — meaning it keeps 45. 1% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: TSM leads at 50. 8% versus 11. 7% for GFS. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — TSM leads at 59. 9%, reflecting greater pricing power or product mix advantage. Stronger margins indicate durable pricing power, lower cost of revenue, or higher mix of software/services. They are one of the clearest signs of business quality.
07Is UMC or TSM or GFS more undervalued right now?
The PEG ratio (forward P/E divided by expected earnings growth rate) is the most precise measure of undervaluation relative to growth potential.
By this metric, Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited (TSM) is the more undervalued stock at a PEG of 0. 03x versus United Microelectronics Corporation's 3. 06x. A PEG below 1. 0 is traditionally considered the threshold for growth-adjusted undervaluation. On forward earnings alone, Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited (TSM) trades at 0. 8x forward P/E versus 39. 2x for GLOBALFOUNDRIES Inc. — 38. 4x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis. Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for TSM: 1. 9% to $427. 50.
08Which pays a better dividend — UMC or TSM or GFS?
In this comparison, UMC (3.
0% yield), TSM (0. 7% yield) pay a dividend. GFS does not pay a meaningful dividend and should not be held primarily for income.
09Is UMC or TSM or GFS better for a retirement portfolio?
For long-horizon retirement investors, United Microelectronics Corporation (UMC) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding (low volatility (β 0.
90), 3. 0% yield, +915. 2% 10Y return). GLOBALFOUNDRIES Inc. (GFS) carries a higher beta of 1. 85 — meaning larger drawdowns in market downturns, which matters significantly when you cannot wait years for a recovery. Both have compounded well over 10 years (UMC: +915. 2%, GFS: +55. 8%), confirming both are viable long-term holds — but the lower-volatility option typically results in less emotional selling during corrections. Retirement portfolios generally favour predictability over maximum returns. Consult a financial advisor before making allocation decisions.
10What are the main differences between UMC and TSM and GFS?
Both stocks operate in the Technology sector, making this a peer-level intra-sector comparison — the same macro tailwinds and headwinds will affect both.
In terms of investment character: UMC is a mid-cap income-oriented stock; TSM is a mega-cap high-growth stock; GFS is a mid-cap quality compounder stock. UMC, TSM pay a dividend while GFS does not, making them suitable for different income and tax situations. These fundamental differences mean investors should not choose between them on a single metric — the "better stock" depends entirely on which of these characteristics aligns with your investment strategy.
Find Stocks Like These
Explore pre-built screens for each stock's profile, or build a custom screen to find stocks that outperform all of them.
You Might Also Compare
Based on how these companies actually compete and overlap — not just which sector they're filed under.