Record dates use UTC and show when an assessment or clarification was saved. Review dates show the evidence check. Earlier records were recovered from QubitWire’s source history; no earlier score movement is inferred.
No dated name or ownership transition is recorded here. An alias is a search aid, not evidence of a legal ownership relationship.
Product scope
Electron-spin qubits in silicon MOS quantum dots fabricated using a 300 mm foundry process.
A company profile may discuss several systems. Capabilities remain attached to the product and conditions named in each source; they do not transfer automatically to related organizations. A verified security relationship has not been attached to this record.
Inspect the original source, the conditions and the dated claim record. Technical evidence stays separate from QRank’s editorial assessment and share-price performance.
These source updates add context. QRank scores retain their existing assessment dates.
QBI Stage C · Programme selection
DARPA’s new Stage C selections move four roadmaps into verification and validation. A selection is not an application-level result or a ranking of winners.
Source checked Limits, research question & sources
No automatic score change. Company releases describe the same programme event rather than independent tests.
Question to follow: What subsequent testing changes the proposed system’s assumptions?
Dated company evidence, its limits and the next test to follow. These notes do not change a QRank score.
DiraqSilicon MOS spin qubits
Sources reviewed 20 Oct 2026. Event dates remain attached to the original evidence.
Diraq’s July 2026 announcement describes coherent operation and readout in an eight-qubit silicon array produced using imec’s 300-millimeter CMOS manufacturing. This is evidence about a fabricated device and its measured operation. It does not establish a mass-produced fault-tolerant processor at a larger scale.
Manufacturing provenance is valuable because it helps turn a laboratory result into a question that can be repeated across wafers and lots. The next question is statistical: how broadly does the reported behavior appear, and how much tuning does it require? A small set of excellent devices can demonstrate the physics while leaving production consistency uncertain. A useful Diraq card should preserve the operating configuration and distinguish a measured array from the manufacturing process that produced it. It should also identify the dependencies needed to operate a larger assembly, including control channels and calibration complexity. Readers can then follow whether scale adds useful capability or mainly adds engineering work. The strongest future evidence would show a distribution of working devices, a transparent acceptance threshold and a larger integrated experiment that does not depend on selecting only the best outcomes.
For a reader evaluating Diraq, the practical question is whether multi-device performance is representative of a wafer process and remains controllable as arrays grow. A useful next evidence check is specific: ask for device-selection rules, across-wafer variation, coupled-gate operation and repeated calibration under the same protocol. A selected working array cannot establish broad process yield or the cost of operating many arrays. These are proposed tests for judging a later update, not claims that the company has already passed them.
Security status: No public security verified in reviewed material; directory/watch profile only
Facts, comparisons and next evidence
At a glance
label
Quantum role
value
Silicon MOS spin qubits
label
Evidence date
value
2026-07-13
label
Assessment action
value
Evidence enrichment
Dated milestones
date
2026-07-13
Date scope
source publication date; unknown if undated
event
Wafer-compatible array result released
status
Published primary evidence; retain the narrower maturity statement
what it does not establish
A selected working array cannot establish broad process yield or the cost of operating many arrays.
Quantum role
layer
Silicon MOS spin qubits
Question
Whether multi-device performance is representative of a wafer process and remains controllable as arrays grow.
Questions for comparison
Across-wafer device uniformity
Tuning effort per usable device
Multi-qubit behavior after industrial fabrication
Related approaches
name
Quantum Motion
relationship
Proposed comparison of relevant dimensions; not a claim of equivalent products or a ranking
dimensions
Across-wafer device uniformity
Tuning effort per usable device
Multi-qubit behavior after industrial fabrication
name
Silicon Quantum Computing
relationship
Proposed comparison of relevant dimensions; not a claim of equivalent products or a ranking
dimensions
Across-wafer device uniformity
Tuning effort per usable device
Multi-qubit behavior after industrial fabrication
Limits and missing evidence
A selected working array cannot establish broad process yield or the cost of operating many arrays.
Full device-selection and yield statistics
Independent reproduction of array performance
Larger system control and calibration evidence
What would change this assessment
trigger
Ask for device-selection rules, across-wafer variation, coupled-gate operation and repeated calibration under the same protocol.
Evidence needed
Dated primary technical report, product specification or customer/issuer disclosure directly answering the test.
Test
Identify the configuration, time boundary and measured outcome; retain unsuccessful attempts and stated limitations.
Limit
A selected working array cannot establish broad process yield or the cost of operating many arrays.
A starting question
question
Why are wafer statistics more informative than a photograph of a wafer?
answer
The photograph shows that fabrication occurred. Statistics show how many devices meet the required behavior and how consistently. A scalable production claim needs the latter, including failures and the selection process.
Company evidence guideDiraq: separate a foundry process from the distribution of usable qubitsRead the eight-qubit foundry result through the denominators that manufacturing requires.Context reviewed +
Diraq and imec reported coherent operation and readout of an eight-spin-qubit silicon MOS array in July 2026, using imec’s 300 mm CMOS-compatible platform. That is a specific manufacturing and device claim with a named partner and a bounded array size. It supports a profile about the path from a fabrication process to a functioning device. It does not establish a wafer-wide distribution of usable qubits, a complete production yield or a fault-tolerant computer. Those would require different evidence.
The word manufacturable can hide several engineering questions that deserve separate answers. Can the desired structures be produced using the stated process? Can devices be tuned into the intended operating regime? How much device-to-device adjustment is needed? How often does a fabricated device meet the selected performance target? Each question has a different denominator. A well-performing measured array is valuable evidence, but the sample may have been selected from a larger set whose results are not reported. Readers should be able to see when that selection information is missing.
A useful visual for the organization page would follow one imaginary wafer through four stages: fabricated structures, electrically addressable devices, successfully tuned devices and devices meeting an experiment’s acceptance criteria. The illustration would contain no invented percentages. Instead, each stage would show the kind of measurement that belongs there and a blank field where the source has not supplied a number. This helps readers understand why a process result can be an advance without allowing an attractive wafer photograph to imply universal device uniformity.
The next practical issue is calibration effort. A processor with many individually adjustable controls may need automated routines, reliable initialisation and procedures for recovering from a poor operating point. A future Diraq update could therefore become more informative by reporting tuning success across devices or repeated operation over time, rather than only a best-case gate statistic. That is a proposed reporting direction, not a claim about undisclosed results. The same discipline applies to data-centre deployment plans: an announced location, installed equipment and a supported computational service are different milestones.
Technology
Silicon MOS spin qubits
Reported sample
Eight-qubit array in July 2026 announcement
Fabrication context
300 mm CMOS-compatible platform at imec
Yield denominator
Unreported in this record
Listing status
No direct listed security verified in consulted sources
Ticker
Not asserted
Proposed comparison
Fabricated, addressable, tuned and accepted devices must retain separate counts
Questions to take with you
Why can a small array matter for manufacturing?
It can show that a particular process supports functioning quantum devices under stated conditions. The next questions concern reproducibility and integration; a small result need not answer those questions to be technically useful.
What number would improve the profile most?
A clearly defined distribution can be more revealing than a new best result: for example, the fraction of tested devices reaching an explicit operating criterion, with the selection method, test conditions and rejected samples reported.
Evidence context only. This guide does not change QRank scores or supply a current price.
Primary research index for device and quantum-logic work
Index alone does not validate every result or current service availability.
SOURCE REVIEW
Silicon spin devices and a utility-scale roadmap
Diraq develops spin qubits based on modified silicon transistors. Its official material separates published device research from a roadmap toward much larger processors and integrated control.
What this establishes—and its limits
Projected qubit counts, power consumption and useful operations are future system targets. They must not be presented as properties of a delivered machine.
Evidence to look for next
Follow integrated operation, calibration and error correction at increasing device sizes, with yield and control overhead stated.
Sources reviewed . This review does not create or change a QRank assessment.
A July 2026 peer-reviewed paper reports coherent control of eight spins in a linear array, characterized as four double-dot pairs, with a controlled-phase operation studied on one neighboring pair.
This is not an eight-qubit entangled processor benchmark. Reliable exchange across the array and larger connected architectures remain unresolved in this experiment.
The next question to watch
Demonstrate reliable entangling operations across an extended connected array.
A research question, not a promised milestone.
QubitWire coverage
No published QubitWire stories currently match this organization. The evidence sources below provide the starting point.
Open research questions
Editorial questions for this profile. No reviewed closure decision has been recorded; unanswered questions do not lower the official score.
Open research question
Demonstrate reliable entangling operations across an extended connected array.
What evidence would help
A source addressing this question must identify the named system, experiment or deployment, its conditions, measured outcome and remaining limitations. Does the result report errors, circuit depth and a credible classical baseline?
What would resolve it?
An editorial review must explain which part of this question the evidence resolves. A roadmap or an announcement alone does not close it.
No resolved, partial or disputed outcome is asserted without a reviewed transition and its evidence.
Which named system or service can I use under the documented access route?
What evidence would help
Check the current terms for research and development. Identify the system version, eligibility, restrictions and whether the result used hardware or simulation.
What would resolve it?
Current primary documentation must identify the offering, eligible user and access conditions. An unspecified company-level access claim is insufficient.
No resolved, partial or disputed outcome is asserted without a reviewed transition and its evidence.
Can you access the named system today, and under which plan?
What evidence would help
Provide the source location, relevant product or generation, workload, resource constraints and reported uncertainty. Keep measurements, simulations and announced targets distinct.
What would resolve it?
A source reviewer must map the evidence to this exact scope. Missing disclosure remains unknown; it is not technical failure.
No resolved, partial or disputed outcome is asserted without a reviewed transition and its evidence.
Questions are drawn from the existing brief and sector reading guide. Research brief reviewed 23 Sept 2026. Following stores a local bookmark; it does not send email alerts or imply a scheduled review.
Since your review
Scope: Diraq. Reading a page never marks its records reviewed.
Keep a baseline and explicitly mark the evidence you have reviewed. This optional journal stays in this browser.
Existing material records remain available after setup. Routine rechecks and initial entries are excluded from material counts.
Diraq’s July 2026 announcement describes coherent operation and readout in an eight-qubit silicon array produced using imec’s 300-millimeter CMOS manufacturing. This is evidence about a fabricated device and its measured operation. It does not establish a mass-produced fault-tolerant processor at a larger scale.
DARPA’s new Stage C selections move four roadmaps into verification and validation. A selection is not an application-level result or a ranking of winners.
Keep up with the companies you follow.
Follow companies to find their published coverage here. Email alerts are not enabled.
