A trapped-ion experiment makes swapping quantum motion continuously tunable
Two ion motional modes undergo a coherent exchange operation. The gate’s exponential name describes its mathematics, not a speed advantage.
Quantum Motion
Develops silicon quantum processors and the equipment needed to operate them as complete systems.
United Kingdom · Research reviewed 23 Sept 2026Initial record: initial research brief recorded.
Review history 1 record
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.
Initial research brief recorded
Research reviewed 23 Sept 2026Sources in this record (2)
Identity & attribution
- Organization record
- Quantum Motion
- Recorded role
- Quantum Computing Hardware
- Recorded aliases
- No aliases recorded in this assessment.
- Name and period
- No dated name or ownership transition is recorded here. An alias is a search aid, not evidence of a legal ownership relationship.
- Product scope
- Silicon CMOS spin qubits with integrated control and software.
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.
Report an identity issue →Company evidence and analysis
Dated company evidence, its limits and the next test to follow. These notes do not change a QRank score.
Quantum MotionSilicon-spin computing and CMOS integration
Sources reviewed 20 Oct 2026. Event dates remain attached to the original evidence.
Quantum Motion announced a $160 million Series C in May 2026 to commercialize its silicon-transistor-based quantum-computing approach. The financing establishes a development-capital milestone. Broad claims about comparative size, energy or cost require their own system definitions and measurement methods before being used in QRank.
The manufacturing appeal of silicon is easy to understand: a familiar industrial process could help make complex devices repeatedly. The difficult question is how much of that familiarity transfers to a working quantum system. A process can produce many transistors while quantum-device uniformity, cryogenic control and calibration remain demanding. A useful Quantum Motion profile should therefore track three connected yields: devices that fabricate correctly, devices that behave acceptably at operating temperature and devices that can be controlled together. The customer’s total installation also matters. Rack space, cooling equipment, electronics and maintenance belong in a cost or energy comparison, not just the processor package. The next convincing evidence would combine manufacturing statistics with a usable system configuration and an externally defined task. That would reveal whether the proposed production advantage survives the steps between a wafer and a dependable calculation.
For a reader evaluating Quantum Motion, the practical question is whether conventional fabrication compatibility produces consistent quantum devices across locations and batches. A useful next evidence check is specific: request yield distributions, automated tuning effort, cryogenic wiring requirements and qubit results on representative devices. A scalable fabrication process can still face device variability and expensive low-temperature characterization. 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-spin integration
- label
- Evidence date
- value
- 2026-05-07
- label
- Assessment action
- value
- Evidence enrichment
Dated milestones
- date
- 2026-05-07
- Date scope
- source publication date; unknown if undated
- event
- Financing round announced
- status
- Published primary evidence; retain the narrower maturity statement
- what it does not establish
- A scalable fabrication process can still face device variability and expensive low-temperature characterization.
Quantum role
- layer
- Silicon-spin integration
- Question
- Whether conventional fabrication compatibility produces consistent quantum devices across locations and batches.
Questions for comparison
- Fabrication-to-cryogenic operating yield
- Integrated control and calibration overhead
- Whole-installation cost/energy boundary
Related approaches
- name
- Diraq
- relationship
- Proposed comparison of relevant dimensions; not a claim of equivalent products or a ranking
- dimensions
- Fabrication-to-cryogenic operating yield
- Integrated control and calibration overhead
- Whole-installation cost/energy boundary
- name
- Equal1
- relationship
- Proposed comparison of relevant dimensions; not a claim of equivalent products or a ranking
- dimensions
- Fabrication-to-cryogenic operating yield
- Integrated control and calibration overhead
- Whole-installation cost/energy boundary
Limits and missing evidence
- A scalable fabrication process can still face device variability and expensive low-temperature characterization.
- Device distribution across manufacturing lots
- Complete system resource accounting
- Independent accepted workload on stated hardware
What would change this assessment
- trigger
- Request yield distributions, automated tuning effort, cryogenic wiring requirements and qubit results on representative devices.
- 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 scalable fabrication process can still face device variability and expensive low-temperature characterization.
A starting question
- question
- Why does “made with CMOS” not finish the scaling argument?
- answer
- Manufacturing a device and operating many devices together are different challenges. A useful quantum processor also needs consistent behavior, control and readout at its working conditions. Track each stage instead of assuming one manufacturing label proves the whole chain.
Original sources and scope
- Quantum Motion raises $160 million Series C ↗Source dated 7 May 2026
Broad cost or energy comparisons require a specified comparative methodology; funding alone does not establish them.
Quantum MotionPrivate industry context; no public security added
Sources reviewed 20 Oct 2026. Event dates remain attached to the original evidence.
Announced or reported: Quantum Motion announced a $160 million Series C.
Still conditional: Projected cost, space and energy advantages need matched full-system evidence; the financing does not establish them.
Quantum Motion’s watch card should test whether an industrial manufacturing route translates into a usable and economical quantum installation. The meaningful chain runs from fabrication yield through cryogenic operation to customer acceptance. Each step can create costs that are invisible in a processor-only comparison. A useful business update should ask what production work is outsourced, what remains proprietary and how much calibration or support each accepted system requires. The next evidence would combine a repeatable device distribution with an operating configuration and clearly bounded resource measurements. A claim of lower energy use should include the supporting equipment and the work completed, not just power at one component. For private-company coverage, the financing is relevant context for the development program, while investability and transaction-specific terms remain separate and unverified here.
Connect capital to measurable fabrication, tuning and integration work. The concrete next evidence is: representative-wafer results and customer or fabrication-partner evidence of repeatable processing. Funding does not establish production economics, and selected-device results can hide variability. This watch record should change when that evidence changes, with the original event and reporting period preserved so readers can distinguish a new outcome from a refreshed page.
Facts, comparisons and next evidence
At a glance
- label
- Commercial evidence stage
- value
- Silicon-development finance
- label
- Catalyst date
- value
- 2026-05-07
- label
- Security treatment
- value
- Private/industry watch; no verified public security
Dated milestones
- date
- 2026-05-07
- event
- Series C commercialization financing
- status
- Silicon-development finance
- Remaining condition
- See this card’s remaining-condition panel for the complete unresolved scope.
Cash and revenue boundary
- Question
- Connect capital to measurable fabrication, tuning and integration work.
- risk
- Funding does not establish production economics, and selected-device results can hide variability.
- realized or announced
- See this card’s announced-fact panel; the complete source-backed state is recorded there once.
- still conditional
- See this card’s remaining-condition panel; keep its qualifications attached to the fact.
What would change this assessment
- Evidence needed
- Representative-wafer results and customer or fabrication-partner evidence of repeatable processing.
- Test
- Connect capital to measurable fabrication, tuning and integration work.
- Limit
- Funding does not establish production economics, and selected-device results can hide variability.
Basis for comparison
- dimensions
- Process yield
- tuning effort
- integration milestones
- rule
- Compare the same period, currency, instrument or contract status. Unknown values stay blank; no cross-company score is supplied.
Limits and missing evidence
- Funding does not establish production economics, and selected-device results can hide variability.
- Does an industrial process eliminate or merely relocate calibration costs?
- Are system comparisons made at equal workload quality?
Measures to follow
- Usable devices per fabrication lot
- Whole-system resources at a defined task
- Customer acceptance and support effort
Documents still needed
- Manufacturing partner and process qualification evidence
- Full cost/energy comparison method
- Private financing terms if publicly disclosed
Reporting currency
USDOriginal sources and scope
- Quantum Motion raises $160 million Series C ↗Source dated 7 May 2026
Broad cost or energy comparisons require a specified comparative methodology; funding alone does not establish them.
Read, question, follow the source
A closer look at the evidence
Company evidence guideQuantum Motion: a full-stack installation needs a reproducible acceptance recordTurn a full-stack deployment claim into a record of what users can reproduce.
Quantum Motion’s May 2026 financing announcement points back to a silicon CMOS quantum-computer deployment at the UK National Quantum Computing Centre in 2025. Its product page describes a full-stack system built with 300 mm silicon CMOS wafer technology. These are concrete company statements about an installation and its manufacturing approach. The useful follow-up is to ask what a researcher can reproduce on that installation, which interfaces are supported and how the delivered system is evaluated over time.
Full stack describes an integration boundary, but the boundary must be drawn. A reader needs to distinguish the semiconductor device from cryogenic control, room-temperature electronics, orchestration software and the interface exposed to a user. A successful demonstration through all those layers can reveal problems that a component experiment cannot. It also makes diagnosis more difficult because a failed run may originate in several places. The organization profile should therefore treat integration as a technical achievement with its own tests, rather than as a decorative description attached to a chip.
An acceptance record could begin with a minimal experiment that travels through the complete interface: prepare a specified state, execute a bounded operation, measure, retrieve the data and reproduce the analysis. The value lies in preserving the configuration and the expected interpretation. A later software revision should state whether the same programme still works and whether any result change comes from calibration, compilation or hardware. This example is an editorial proposal for documenting a testbed. It does not assert that a particular Quantum Motion API or access entitlement has been publicly verified.
The installation also invites a fair comparison between manufacturing familiarity and operating maturity. Standard semiconductor processes offer a route to fabrication, but the complete quantum system still has to demonstrate the performance required by its intended workload. The right questions concern the process actually used, the measured device population, control resources and the cost of repeated operation. A profile should not imply that conventional transistor production automatically transfers all its economics to a quantum processor. Nor should it ignore the value of using a process that can be examined within an existing industrial ecosystem.
NQCC independently identifies Quantum Motion’s Silicon Cloverleaf testbed and confirms the installed system. That host-side confirmation is already reflected in the company profile. Contract acceptance criteria, a public execution route and a reproducible user-facing workload remain separate questions; the installation statement does not answer them by itself.
- Technology
- Silicon CMOS quantum computing
- Reported location
- UK National Quantum Computing Centre
- Deployment date context
- 2025 deployment referenced in May 2026 announcement
- Customer acceptance evidence
- Not independently retrieved during this review
- Listing status
- No direct listed security verified in consulted sources
- Ticker
- Not asserted
- Interface status
- Public execution entitlement and exact API unverified
Questions to take with you
Why does the customer-side source matter?
It can clarify what was delivered, accepted and made available within the testbed. The supplier and customer may describe different boundaries, so retaining both documents helps readers understand the actual service or research capability.
Can a learning exercise use an imaginary interface?
Yes, if it is explicitly an exercise. A specification for inputs, result metadata and failures can teach integration skills without pretending to be Quantum Motion’s production API or an employer’s hiring assignment.
Evidence context only. This guide does not change QRank scores or supply a current price.
Sources and their boundaries (3)
- Quantum Motion Series C funding ↗Quantum Motion · 2026-05-07
Company reports 2025 NQCC full-stack silicon CMOS deployment
Funding and installation claims are company statements; unrestricted access not established.
- Quantum Motion product ↗Quantum Motion · Accessed 2026-10-17
Full-stack system and 300 mm silicon CMOS positioning
Comparative first claims not adopted; no production economics inferred.
- Quantum computing testbeds in the UK ↗National Quantum Computing Centre · Page checked 2026-10-17
NQCC identifies Silicon Cloverleaf and confirms Quantum Motion’s installed system.
Installation confirmation does not supply contract acceptance criteria or establish unrestricted public access.
Silicon integration remains the engineering objective
Quantum Motion develops silicon-spin quantum-computing architectures compatible with semiconductor processing. Its current site links a Series C announcement and a subsequent investment update as separate items.
What this establishes—and its limits
Funding supports development but is not a processor benchmark. Conventional transistor manufacturing capacity does not automatically translate into usable, controlled quantum bits.
Evidence to look for next
Look for integrated qubit operation, readout and control results alongside fabrication and packaging evidence.
Sources reviewed . This review does not create or change a QRank assessment.
- Quantum Motion: official overview Company website · Publication date not stated
Current product and technology description.
What it does. Where it fits.
Silicon CMOS spin qubits with integrated control and software.
Who should look closer
Researchers evaluating silicon spin-qubit systems and semiconductor manufacturing routes.
QubitWire’s editorial assessment of practical fit.Institutional testbed
A system is installed at the UK NQCC; the reviewed material does not establish an unrestricted public cloud service.
Check the current access route ↗What the sources establish
Quantum Motion delivered a silicon CMOS system to NQCC in September 2025. NQCC identifies its Silicon Cloverleaf testbed as a spin-qubit QPU with control and a user interface.
What remains unresolved
Delivery establishes a system milestone; it does not demonstrate fault tolerance, manufacturing yield at commercial scale or application advantage.
The next question to watch
Published testbed validation with reproducible processor and application benchmarks.
A research question, not a promised milestone.QubitWire coverage
Open research questions
Editorial questions for this profile. No reviewed closure decision has been recorded; unanswered questions do not lower the official score.
Published testbed validation with reproducible processor and application benchmarks.
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 institutional testbed. 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.
Since your review
Scope: Quantum Motion. 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.
Sources & evidence
- Silicon CMOS system delivered to NQCC ↗Company technical disclosure · 15 Sept 2025
Reports installation and Qiskit/Cirq-compatible control stack.
- NQCC quantum computing testbeds ↗Institutional program · Publication date not stated
Recipient identifies the Silicon Cloverleaf architecture and testbed.
- Quantum Motion raises $160 million Series C ↗Company primary announcement · 7 May 2026
Quantum Motion announced a $160 million Series C in May 2026 to commercialize its silicon-transistor-based quantum-computing approach. The financing establishes a development-capital milestone. Broad claims about comparative size, energy or cost require their own system definitions and measurement methods before being used in QRank.
Keep up with the companies you follow.
Follow companies to find their published coverage here. Email alerts are not enabled.