Skip to content
QubitWire
IBM Quantum System One cryogenic hardware at IBM’s ThinkLab in Yorktown Heights
IBM Quantum System One · OJB Quantum · CC BY 4.0 · cropped

QUBITWIRE / MARKET DESK

Quantum markets.
In focus.

Track the companies. Compare the evidence. Understand what changes.

Find a company

For research and general information. Not personalized investment advice.

Exposure index

Business, not rank

Explore the business connection, not a prediction of investment returns.

73 company profiles4 exposure groupsInitial directory review
Your quantum research deskSources first. A clearer view of the sector.
Directory
73 profiles
Exposure
4 groups
Watching
— companies
Your updates
How we classify quantum exposure

QubitWire assigns one primary category from documented company activity. Categories can overlap; a computing or security classification does not mean the whole business is quantum. Read each company’s business context and original sources.

Quantum computing
Businesses developing quantum computers, quantum software or photonic quantum systems. Conventional photonics can also appear in their portfolios.
Diversified technology
Large businesses with quantum programs. Their shares reflect substantial activity beyond quantum.
Enabling technology
Chips, fabrication, photonics and instruments that support quantum systems.
Quantum security
Quantum communication, random-number generation, product authentication and post-quantum cryptography. The technologies differ, and post-quantum cryptography runs on classical systems.

Classification owner: QubitWire editorial. The original directory cohort was reviewed . Each profile shows its recorded review date, or states when it is unavailable. These dates are separate from market prices and subsequent research notes.

Editorial standardsSuggest a correction
Market

Understand the selected business, inspect its sources and open optional market data.

Selected companyNXP SemiconductorsNASDAQ:NXPI · USD
Density
Try a name, IONQ, NASDAQ:RGTI or a technology.

Explore by business exposure. Inclusion is not an investment ranking.

73 companies
Researching NXP SemiconductorsNASDAQ:NXPI
THE BUSINESS BEHIND NXPISecurity

NXP Semiconductors

NASDAQ: NXPI · USD · Netherlands

Post-quantum security for embedded processors and industrial microcontrollers

NXP integrates post-quantum cryptography into conventional embedded chips. Its August 2026 MCX A5 announcement describes a PQC hardware root of trust for industrial devices; the company also documents hybrid ML-DSA and ECDSA support in i.MX 95 secure-enclave firmware.

Business exposure

Diversified semiconductor exposure, not a quantum-computer manufacturer. MCX A5 was sampling at announcement. These sources do not quantify PQC revenue or certify every customer implementation.

Check the issuer source
QubitWire research reviewed · Company source ↗

Evidence in brief

Research organization: NXP Semiconductors

NXP documents ML-DSA/ECDSA hybrid support for signed secure-enclave firmware on i.MX 95 and announced PQC-enabled MCX A5 devices.

What this does not establish These are conventional chips using quantum-resistant mathematics. Product features and sampling do not establish deployment-wide assurance or a quantum computing speedup.

Next evidence question Check the exact device revision, supported firmware, independent validation scope and production availability before selecting an implementation.

Research reviewed . Technical research is not a stock rating or a forecast of returns.

Read NXP Semiconductors technical research
Supporting sources (2)
NASDAQ: NXPI · Quote currency: USD

TradingView shows the quote time and market status. Exchange delays apply; availability varies by listing.

TradingView is paused

Allow market data in your privacy choices to connect to TradingView. The provider receives connection information when loaded.

How this works
THE RESEARCH FILE

Go beyond the ticker.

2 research sources

Inspect the evidence. These research sources can cover a wider scope than the sources used in a QRank assessment.

Quantum evidenceOriginal sources, claims and their limits

QubitWire’s editorial summaries connect the sources below to this company. Source type and publication date are separate from our review date. This is research context, not an investment rating.

Organization technical disclosure · Supports the reviewed findingNXP: MCX A5 secure industrial connectivitynxp.com

QUBITWIRE SUMMARY OF THE SOURCE

August 18, 2026 announcement identifies MCX A5 PQC hardware-root-of-trust functions and states that the family is sampling.

Published: 18 Aug 2026Editorial review: 7 Oct 2026

These are conventional chips using quantum-resistant mathematics. Product features and sampling do not establish deployment-wide assurance or a quantum computing speedup.

Read the original source
Organization technical documentation · Supports the reviewed findingNXP: i.MX 95 applications processor familynxp.com

QUBITWIRE SUMMARY OF THE SOURCE

The i.MX 95 product page documents hybrid ML-DSA/ECDSA support for NXP-signed secure-enclave firmware.

Published: Publication date not recordedEditorial review: 7 Oct 2026

These are conventional chips using quantum-resistant mathematics. Product features and sampling do not establish deployment-wide assurance or a quantum computing speedup.

Read the original source
Financial scope

The source ledger does not calculate a quantum revenue percentage. Use the listed issuer’s filings to check reporting periods, segment disclosure and financial contribution.

Check the issuer source
Published source history1 dated source in this research file

A history of source publications, not a calendar of upcoming events. A published target or announcement is not proof that a milestone was delivered.

  1. Organization technical disclosureNXP: MCX A5 secure industrial connectivity

    August 18, 2026 announcement identifies MCX A5 PQC hardware-root-of-trust functions and states that the family is sampling.

1 source has no recorded publication date and is not placed on the timeline.

Terms worth knowingRead the technology and the financials in context
PQC, QKD & quantum randomness

Post-quantum cryptography runs on conventional computers. Quantum key distribution uses quantum signals to establish keys. Quantum random-number generation supplies randomness.

Why it matters here: These are different products with different adoption requirements. A security business is not necessarily building a quantum computer.

Operating cash use

Net cash used in operating activities over the reporting period, as shown in the cash-flow statement.

Why it matters here: This includes operating cash receipts, payments and working-capital changes. It differs from accounting loss, capital expenditure and financing cash flows; it does not by itself predict a funding date.

Share dilution

An increase in shares or potential shares that can reduce an existing holder’s percentage ownership.

Why it matters here: Read share issuance, options, warrants and convertible financing together. A headline cash balance does not describe the cost of raising it.

Bookings vs. revenue

Bookings generally describe customer commitments under a company’s own definition. Revenue follows the applicable accounting recognition rules.

Why it matters here: A signed order, funded award or partnership announcement may not be revenue recognized in the current period.

Explore how a quantum computer works
My research notebookQuestions, source bookmarks and a place to returnLocal only

Private to this browser. Notes are not sent to QubitWire, included in Share view or synced to your account. Anyone with access to this browser may read them. Clearing site data removes them.

Research note for NXP Semiconductors
Save sources & a return point

Choose up to 20 source bookmarks.

Loading your local notebook…
NEXT RESEARCH QUESTION

Is the product post-quantum cryptography, quantum key distribution or another technology, and is it deployed?

Editorial research question, not a scheduled event.
THE FINANCIAL QUESTION

Look for paid deployments, renewals and standards support. A partnership announcement alone does not establish recurring sales.

Issuer source Full company research

No matching QubitWire articles are available for NXP Semiconductors yet. Its company sources and research questions remain available above.

Read NXP Semiconductors’s original evidence
Research library, context and methodology

Research context

Research context across the sector

25 notes connect research, programme support, partnerships and deployment plans. Parent companies, subsidiaries and private businesses are identified separately.

Compare the exposure, then compare the evidence

A hardware developer, a diversified technology company and a component supplier have different business exposures. A scientific milestone does not determine a security’s valuation.

Quantum activity
What part of the company’s work is quantum, and is it a developer, supplier or user?
Evidence
What was announced, estimated or actually measured? Keep the task and its conditions attached.
Financial disclosure
Which terms are disclosed? Separate funding ceilings, obligations, cash receipts and recognized revenue.
Uncertainty
What remains unreported, untested or planned? Missing information is unknown, not zero.

Market data has its own clock. The provider’s quote time describes the price; a source-check date describes research. Delays and unavailable data remain visible in the market view. These notes are information, not investment recommendations.

Read the evidence comparison guide →
IBMDiversified technology

Anderon’s federal award, IBM’s own investment plans and the planned Swiss System Two installation are separate events. The releases do not establish how or when each item contributes to recognized revenue.

Source checked

Research question: Which funding conditions, delivery milestones and financial disclosures connect the announcement to economic results?

AnderonSubsidiary context

Anderon is an IBM subsidiary. Its manufacturing plans belong in the parent-company context; the announcement does not establish a separately traded Anderon security.

Source checked

Research question: What rights, ownership and obligations belong to the subsidiary versus the parent?

NVIDIADiversified enabling technology

CUDA-Q Logical and related orchestration tools form part of NVIDIA’s broader software strategy. The announcement does not disclose a separate quantum revenue segment.

Source checked

Research question: Which benefits are tool adoption and which, if any, appear in separately disclosed financial results?

IonQCompany research

IonQ’s radar work is a specific research experiment. A connection to booked sales would require separate commercial or financial disclosure.

Source checked

Research question: What commercial agreement or audited disclosure, if any, connects the experiment to revenue?

QuantinuumIssuer identity and manufacturing support

Quantinuum’s September 11 issuer release identifies Nasdaq: QNT. Its separate CHIPS award supports manufacturing R&D; the benchmark preprint addresses technical performance rather than ownership or valuation.

Source checked

Research question: Does the existing Investing record map to the correct security and current ownership structure?

IQMOrder with planned delivery

IQM’s Eldorado purchase agreement includes an IQM Spark installation planned for Q1 2027 and separate cloud access. No contract value or recognized-revenue figure is established here.

Source checked

Research question: When is installation expected, and what source will later confirm acceptance rather than announcement?

PasqalApplication-development partnership

Pasqal’s collaboration with USA Rare Earth and Riven Systems proposes quantum-versus-classical comparisons for separation chemistry. Technical and commercial outcomes remain to be demonstrated.

Source checked

Research question: What technical and commercial milestones would establish that the partnership produced durable value?

D-WaveGovernment funding

D-Wave’s final CHIPS R&D award is up to $100 million for semiconductor manufacturing work. Funding milestones and accounting treatment should be assessed separately from operating sales.

Source checked

Research question: Are funding milestones, accounting treatment and business-model differences explained?

Hewlett Packard EnterpriseInfrastructure partner context

HPE supplies the classical supercomputing context for its collaboration with QuEra. The announcement does not quantify revenue attributable to quantum computing.

Source checked

Research question: What portion of the announced stack is conventional HPC infrastructure?

Alphabet / Google Quantum AIDiversified research exposure

Google’s appearance in the QUOPS preprint offers evidence about a particular technical comparison. It does not provide an estimate of Alphabet’s quantum business value.

Source checked

Research question: What exactly was evaluated, and does that evidence say anything about commercial readiness?

USA Rare EarthMaterials-industry partner

USA Rare Earth is the materials-processing partner in the Pasqal and Riven Systems project. Its participation does not make it a quantum-hardware vendor or establish quantum-derived revenue.

Source checked

Research question: What does the experiment seek to improve, and how will conventional alternatives be compared?

RiverlanePrivate-company context

Riverlane works on error-correction infrastructure and has announced plans for a Maryland headquarters. This note provides ecosystem context; it does not represent a listed security or an offer of private shares.

Source checked

Research question: What evidence separates research progress, hiring plans and commercial deployment?

InfleqtionTechnical evidence

The Sqale report describes a specific circuit improvement. It provides no revenue figure or basis for a valuation conclusion. Keep technical progress separate from commercial performance.

Source checked

Research question: Which issuer disclosures connect technical milestones to delivered customer services and recognized revenue?

IonQ / FIUDeployment milestones

FIU’s announcement supports a planned campus deployment in late 2027. The university release does not state a contract price or revenue-recognition schedule.

Source checked

Research question: Which delivery, acceptance and financial disclosures confirm how the agreement progresses?

Quantinuum / UWANon-binding access agreement

The non-binding MOU proposes academic cloud access and collaboration. It is not a completed deployment, quantified sale or measured application benefit. Track confirmed access, published results and any later disclosed commercial terms separately.

Source checked

Research question: Which definitive agreement, verified access or financial disclosure changes the current planned status?

Read the evidence, conditions and next test →

Xanadu / BlueforsCooling infrastructure economics

Xanadu’s September 29 Bluefors agreement targets a less obvious expense in photonic computing: cooling the detectors. The issuer describes a collaboration worth multiple millions of U.S. dollars to develop modular cryogenic infrastructure for single-photon detectors near 2 kelvin. Xanadu says its proposed compact module could remove industrial cryoplants from future data centres. Neither measured savings nor the exact collaboration value is disclosed. The investor question is whether a manufacturable module can validate the proposed cooling capacity and costs; the concept has yet to establish lower deployment or operating expenditure.

Source checked

Research question: What prototype results, manufacturing costs and commercial terms would verify the proposed reduction in cooling infrastructure?

Quantum Computing Inc.Backlog and manufacturing investment

QCi’s investor presentation furnished on October 2 separates its commercial backlog from sales already recognized. It reports US$42.5 million of backlog as of June 30, compared with US$9.2 million of revenue for the first six months of 2026. These are historical figures, not October operating results. The presentation also estimates US$70–90 million for Fab 2 and other capital expenditure; that is planned spending, not expenditure already incurred. The commercial mix includes advanced packaging, photonics components and design services alongside quantum systems. Our research question is which deliveries convert backlog into revenue, at what margins, and how manufacturing spending progresses. The backlog total alone does not measure quantum-computing sales.

Source checked

Research question: Which deliveries convert backlog into recognized revenue, at what margins, and how does actual manufacturing spending compare with the capital estimate?

Infineon / ZuriQEnabling technology · manufacturing

The collaboration is a manufacturing and integration exposure. A reported component demonstration and a repeatable operating system are different milestones. Commercial terms are undisclosed; the partnership is not evidence of a quantum pure-play business or an earnings contribution.

Source checked

Research question: What direct technical evidence establishes repeatability, yield and larger-system integration?

Read the related QubitWire analysis →

Read the evidence, conditions and next test →

IBMExternal evaluation · diversified technology

IBM’s Stage C selection puts its roadmap under external scrutiny. It is an evaluation milestone, not an achieved application or a disclosed revenue event. Read future tests separately from any later cash or commercial disclosure.

Source checked

Research question: Which hardware tests and engineering assumptions change the roadmap?

Read the related QubitWire analysis →

Read the evidence, conditions and next test →

IonQConditional programme support

IonQ describes potential programme support, with later funding dependent on appropriations and DARPA actions. A ceiling is distinct from an executed obligation, cash received and recognized revenue. No amount is added to a revenue total here.

Source checked

Research question: What later disclosure establishes the obligation, receipt or revenue classification?

Read the related QubitWire analysis →

Read the evidence, conditions and next test →

NVIDIABroad science commitment

The new science commitment spans several fields. A quantum-only allocation is undisclosed. Track identifiable tools, access and programme deliverables; faster design work and measured quantum applications are different evidence. The earlier CUDA-Q note provides the software context.

Source checked

Research question: Which specific deliverables support quantum research, and what has actually been provided?

Read the related QubitWire analysis →

Read the evidence, conditions and next test →

OratomicPrivate ecosystem context

A private-company development can inform understanding of the sector without creating a tradable stock row. Oratomic’s financing and the March theoretical resource estimate are separate events. No public ticker, price or investment route is supplied.

Source checked

Research question: What measured result would support the architecture’s assumptions?

Read the related QubitWire analysis →

Read the evidence, conditions and next test →

Honeywell Aerospace / Honeywell TechnologiesSeparate issuers and quantum activities

Honeywell Aerospace (Nasdaq: HONA) became an independent company on June 29, 2026. It is the photonics-foundry partner named in Infleqtion's October 6 optical-cavity prototype announcement. Honeywell Technologies (Nasdaq: HON), whose legal issuer name remains Honeywell International Inc., is a different security; its filing for the quarter ended June 30 records a 48% noncontrolling Quantinuum interest. The cavity announcement establishes a fabrication collaboration, not a complete handheld quantum system, disclosed production yield or quantified revenue contribution.

Source checked

Research question: Which legal issuer owns the relevant activity, and what later technical or financial disclosure establishes its commercial contribution?

Read the related QubitWire analysis →

IonQ / ElisityTransaction filing

IonQ’s October 13 SEC filing separates $1.15 billion in closing stock consideration before adjustments, up to $150 million in revenue-linked earnout shares, and a further $100 million restricted-stock-unit retention pool for continuing Elisity employees. The retention pool is additional to merger consideration; the awards would be granted after closing and vest over four years. Share counts use the agreement’s collared 20-trading-day volume-weighted average price. These are pending transaction terms, not completed issuance, cash spending or a guaranteed earnout.

Source checked

Research question: What share count and retention awards are disclosed at closing, and which revenue milestones later determine the earnout?

Infleqtion / Innovate UKSensing development award

Infleqtion says Innovate UK awarded £9 million for the second phase of its Quantum Direction Finding project, developing a deployable Rydberg-atom radio-frequency sensor with Leonardo. The October 13 release describes product development and operational-environment validation following an earlier prototype. GOV.UK independently names ColdQuanta UK among supported projects but does not publish its individual award amount. This is sensing exposure within a company that also builds quantum computers. The announcement does not establish cash received, recognized revenue or customer purchases; funding terms and milestone fulfillment still matter.

Source checked

Research question: Which grant milestones, payment timing and accounting treatment will later disclosures establish, and what field-test evidence demonstrates deployability?

A BETTER RESEARCH HABIT

Three things a stock chart won’t tell you.

01 / TECHNOLOGY

Qubits aren’t a league table.

Hardware quality, speed and the task matter alongside scale. Look for demonstrated results and distinguish physical from logical qubits.

Understand the metrics
02 / COMMERCIAL PROGRESS

A milestone isn’t a business model.

Ask what customers pay for, whether orders become revenue and how much cash the business needs to keep developing.

Read the company filings
03 / EXPOSURE

A quantum connection has many forms.

A specialist, a chip supplier and a diversified technology company can have very different economics. Compare the business before the price.

Follow the business question

Quantum exposure takes different forms

Five notes connect security, atomic timing and field sensing to their business context. Announcement, availability, customer adoption and revenue are separate steps. Missing information remains unknown.

Research checked . Market prices retain their own provider timestamps. These notes are research information, not investment recommendations.

CloudflareDiversified cloud and security · post-quantum migration

Existing listed-issuer research context

Cloudflare’s quantum relevance here is protecting classical networks. The origin-authentication update adds a security capability inside a broad service business; it does not establish a separate quantum revenue stream.

Research question: Which customers enable the capability, how does it fit their service, and what commercial evidence is actually disclosed?

Cloudflare added ML-DSA support to Custom Origin Trust Store and the per-zone and per-hostname configurations of Authenticated Origin Pulls for Cloudflare-to-origin authentication.

Conditions: Custom Origin Trust Store requires Advanced Certificate Manager. Customers must configure compatible origin systems; global Authenticated Origin Pulls support was deferred in the announcement.

What remains unestablished: Support does not establish that every customer or visitor connection uses post-quantum authentication. The 2029 suite-wide objective remains a roadmap target.

What to follow: Follow documented enablement, deployment scope and disclosed customer use. Keep key exchange, authentication and adoption separate.

The technical release and earlier roadmap are provider-authored. A target date is not a delivered capability.

Issuer identity sources

Read the related analysis → · Read the shared evidence context →

AkamaiDiversified cloud and security · text-only research

Listed issuer · no quote or trade instrument in this note

Akamai’s origin option makes a memorable research distinction: a capability can be available and still be switched off. Evaluate adoption and business disclosure separately from technical availability.

Research question: What does enabling the option require, which connections negotiate it, and is any adoption or commercial effect disclosed?

Akamai identifies end-to-end post-quantum key exchange as generally available on its Enhanced TLS network from 12 August. Its origin behaviour remains disabled by default in the documentation checked here.

Conditions: The origin server controls the negotiated key exchange. Unsupported origins can request a classical alternative; already-open persistent connections retain their existing negotiation.

What remains unestablished: Availability is not universal enablement or complete post-quantum authentication. No adoption rate or incremental revenue is established.

What to follow: Follow service scope, explicit configuration, negotiated connections and disclosed adoption. Missing adoption information is unknown, not zero.

Announcement and current documentation are one provider source family. General availability and the post publication date are separate dates.

Issuer identity sources

Read the related analysis → · Read the shared evidence context →

Microchip TechnologyDiversified semiconductors · atomic timing

Existing listed-issuer research context

An atomic clock and a quantum processor solve different problems. Space timing is a specialised activity inside Microchip’s broad electronics business; a physics connection alone does not establish new segment economics.

Research question: Where do the timing products fit in the disclosed business, and what evidence supports actual customer demand?

Microchip announced the Space CSAC-SA65, a radiation-tolerant chip-scale atomic clock for space timing, and identified it as available for purchase.

Conditions: The product emphasizes size, power, radiation tolerance and timing. The historical JILA optical-clock experiment measured time dilation inside an atomic sample; it is a separate system.

What remains unestablished: Do not transfer laboratory optical-clock performance to this commercial device. The announcement supplies no quantum-specific revenue, margins or market share.

What to follow: Read product specifications and demonstrated customer use beside the issuer’s broader business disclosures.

The product release and 2022 physics experiment are distinct evidence events, used here to explain the boundary between commercial timing and laboratory metrology.

Read the related analysis →

ThalesDiversified issuer · text-only cryptographic research

Issuer research only · no quote or instrument association in this note

Cryptographic agility is an operating problem: changing algorithms also means managing keys, compatibility and policy. Read the product development beside Thales’s broader business, with no inferred quantum revenue share or return.

Research question: Which migrations and version-specific assessments are documented, and which business effects remain undisclosed?

Thales describes Luna 8 key protection and support for hybrid cryptography and cryptographic agility during the post-quantum transition.

Conditions: Compatibility, configuration, testing and operating procedures determine how a capability becomes a usable migration.

What remains unestablished: Product support does not establish completed customer migration, product-wide certification, a quantum processor or quantum-specific revenue.

What to follow: Follow concrete deployment evidence and version-specific assurance, with scope and dates attached.

Issuer commentary explains intended product scope. It is not an independent security assessment.

Issuer identity sources

Read the related analysis →

Q-CTRLPrivate company · non-tradable research

Private-company research · no listed share, quote or proxy instrument

A compelling sensing result is worth following even when there is no ordinary exchange-listed share to buy. Keep scientific evidence, product development and access to an investment as separate questions.

Research question: What independent evaluation, repeatable customer use and business disclosures would show the trial becoming a commercial service?

A quantum gravimeter aided inertial navigation on an 83 km maritime route. The version 1 preprint reports about one nautical mile error over the first 70 km and 2.2 nautical miles at the endpoint.

Conditions: The navigation chain excluded GNSS inputs and matched gravity measurements against a stored map. GNSS was used later to evaluate position error. A separate surveying mode used GNSS.

What remains unestablished: Company-led trial and preprint evidence does not establish independent replication, certification or reliable operation on every route. Sensor performance and navigation-system accuracy differ.

What to follow: Follow independent evaluation across routes, sea conditions, map quality and clearly matched baselines.

The company announcement and preprint describe one trial family. Surveying and navigation are distinct analyses, not independent replications.

Read the related analysis → · Read the shared evidence context →

Follow the business question

Follow the step that actually changed

Five notes follow manufacturing, interconnects, software access, private financing and an exploratory interface agreement. Technical evidence and business outcomes have their own dates. Missing information remains unknown.

Research checked . Market prices retain their own provider timestamps. These notes are research information, not investment recommendations.

Xanadu Quantum TechnologiesManufacturing development

Existing listed instrument retained. Nasdaq and TSX listings have distinct venues and currencies; this note adds no market feed, proxy or inferred revenue.

The partnership targets detector and low-loss photonics industrialization. Process qualification and repeatable results would answer a different business question from another statement of the agreement.

Research question: What has crossed from announced process development into dated, qualified and repeatable manufacturing?

The multi-year partnership targets industrialization of superconducting nanowire single-photon detectors and ultra-low-loss silicon-nitride photonics on a 300 mm manufacturing platform in Malta, New York.

Manufacturing partnership announcement · Event dated

Conditions: Wafer size, detector efficiency, yield and integrated-system performance are different quantities. NIST explains detector physics and tradeoffs; it supplies no measurements of the partners’ process.

What remains unestablished: The announcement does not establish a qualified production process, measured repeatability, shipments, revenue or a finished fault-tolerant computer. Missing yield is unknown rather than zero.

What to follow: Look for dated process qualification, defined yield, repeatability or integrated-component results. An evidence ladder is a reporting taxonomy, not a probability forecast.

The issuer-distributed release is the same event already covered in the canonical manufacturing article. NIST is general technical context, not validation of the manufacturing plan.

Issuer identity sources

  • Xanadu / GlobalFoundries manufacturing partnership ↗ · Issuer-distributed announcement · Source dated

    The original investor-relations page returned an access block. This is the issuer’s same release distributed through GlobeNewswire, not an independent source family.

Read the related analysis → · Read the shared evidence context →

IonQComponent evidence

Existing listed instrument retained. The company’s announcement identifies NYSE: IONQ; the research note changes no ticker, quote venue or provider mapping.

The ion–diamond result is a component experiment with rate and fidelity stated together. Its relevance to an eventual distributed system does not establish product deployment or revenue.

Research question: What useful integrated operation can the connection support once waiting, other links and system costs are counted?

The version 1 preprint reports an averaged heralded Bell-pair rate of 1.03(1) kHz and state fidelity of 87.9(7)% between a trapped barium ion and a silicon-vacancy centre in diamond, including the photon-conversion loss.

Laboratory experiment / preprint · Event dated
Different measures from one experimental protocol
MeasureReported valueWhat it describes
Heralded Bell-pair rate1.03(1) kHzAverage successful entanglement events per unit time in the stated protocol.
Entangled-state fidelity87.9(7)%Quality of the resulting state under the same experimental protocol.

Heralded ion–diamond Bell-pair generation, including conversion loss; version 1 snapshot.

Conditions: Rate and state fidelity describe different parts of the same experimental protocol. A successful event is a heralded entangled pair, not an application step. Parenthesized uncertainty notation is retained from the paper.

What remains unestablished: This component-level result is not deployed distributed-application throughput, revenue evidence or a universal best-link comparison. A separate local nuclear gate fidelity is not the reported link fidelity.

What to follow: Follow versioned journal evidence and integrated operations that count memory waiting, other links and complete operation costs under matched event definitions.

The preprint and IonQ announcement describe one experimental source family. The company release is not independent reproduction.

Issuer identity sources

Read the related analysis → · Read the shared evidence context →

D-Wave QuantumSoftware and hardware milestones

Existing listed instrument retained. The October issuer release identifies NASDAQ: QBTS. Current and historical market venue records remain unchanged.

Selected beta access, physical gate measurements and delivery of a gate-model processor belong at different points on a company timeline. Beta participation alone establishes no customer revenue.

Research question: Was the update a versioned software release, an access change, a hardware measurement or an actual deployment?

D-Wave gate-model simulator beta

D-Wave announced a selected-participant beta for a gate-model simulator focused on error-aware programming, before planned general availability and future physical gate-model systems.

Selected-participant software access · Event dated

Conditions: Keep the simulator’s model, version, included operations and access eligibility attached to any result. Named participation is distinct from paid use.

What remains unestablished: Software access does not establish measured physical gate performance, public access for every visitor, deployed gate-model hardware or undisclosed customer revenue.

What to follow: Follow a documented version or access change, versioned model assumptions and a measured comparison with the corresponding hardware.

The company announcement is one software-access event already covered by the canonical simulator story, not a new physical experiment.

D-Wave dual-rail gate experiment

The August paper reported a physical entangling gate for dual-rail erasure qubits encoded in pairs of superconducting microwave cavities, studying whether useful error structure survives the operation.

Measured two-qubit hardware experiment · Event dated

Conditions: An erasure location can help a suitable code or decoder. Recovery still requires structured encoding; detector mistakes and unflagged errors must be counted. The paper’s larger correction comparisons include simulations.

What remains unestablished: The gate experiment is separate from October beta access. It is not a complete fault-tolerant computer, proof of perfect error flags or a universal reduction of every correction cost.

What to follow: Follow broader operations, measured error-model correspondence and full resource comparisons including imperfect detection.

The publisher record and official PubMed author abstract describe one paper. A repository or index copy is not independent reproduction.

Issuer identity sources

Read the related analysis → · Read the shared evidence context →

Universal QuantumPrivate-company financing

Private company · non-tradable research. No listed share, quote, proxy instrument, valuation estimate or investment-access offer is created.

More than US$100 million in financing provides resources for the modular programme. The earlier matter-link experiment retains its February 2023 date and its own measurement definition.

Research question: What new connected-system capability or commercial outcome is demonstrated independently of the financing?

Universal Quantum Series A

University of Sussex and participating investor Nauta Capital reported more than US$100 million in Series A financing for Universal Quantum’s modular trapped-ion programme.

Private-company financing · Event dated

Conditions: The more-than amount and USD currency belong to financing. Intended development and commercialization are future uses of capital, not completed-system revenue.

What remains unestablished: The round does not establish valuation, public investment access, hardware performance or the quality of an inter-module link.

What to follow: Follow separately sourced technical or commercial outcomes with explicit dates and scope, rather than converting investor enthusiasm into capability scores.

The university spin-out report and participating-investor account concern the same financing. Both have a relationship to the programme; neither independently validates the machine.

Universal Quantum historical matter-link

The February 2023 paper studied transport of ion qubits between adjacent ion-trap microchip modules, with ion loss and phase coherence evaluated separately.

Measured ion-transport experiment · Event dated

Conditions: This matter-link physically moves an ion. Ion-transport rate and loss are not interchangeable with heralded Bell-pair rate, remote-gate fidelity or finished application throughput.

What remains unestablished: Historical transport evidence does not by itself establish a completed larger modular computer or a new October 2026 technical result. Financing cannot refresh its measurement date.

What to follow: Look for links and local operations working together, with timing, scheduling and repeated-use reliability included.

This historical paper is a separate evidence event from the 2026 financing, even though both concern the same canonical company.

Read the related analysis → · Read the shared evidence context →

Quobly and SiPearlExploratory ecosystem agreement

Private ecosystem context · no market instrument. Quobly uses its existing canonical organization. SiPearl is named in the sourced agreement; no unverified organization ID or public ticker is invented.

The non-exclusive agreement explores an interface between conventional and quantum computing. A documented complete workflow would add evidence that partner names cannot supply on their own.

Research question: Which concrete deliverable changes an exploratory agreement into an inspectable integration result?

The non-exclusive memorandum proposes feasibility work combining SiPearl’s Rhea1 processor and Seine reference server with Quobly’s Alloy QPU programme.

Non-exclusive exploratory agreement · Event dated

Conditions: The first phase is exploratory. Assess a complete workflow including preparation, communication, control and interpretation, under the same task and answer-quality requirement.

What remains unestablished: The agreement is not a shipped joint computer, tested interface, advantage benchmark or disclosed revenue. European design and collaboration do not mean wholly European fabrication.

What to follow: Follow a funded and scoped joint project, documented interface, working integrated demonstration or complete workflow comparison.

The agreement and SiPearl product page supply partner-authored context. The product page describes Rhea1; it does not validate the proposed joint integration.

Read the related analysis →

Follow the next evidence

Read the business claim in context

Four company developments and twelve reading companions connect an announcement to the documents, limits and next evidence that matter.

Context sources checked . These notes are research information, not investment recommendations. Company review dates, QRank assessments and provider quote times remain separate.

IonQ: a transaction to follow in stagesCompany development

Source dated

IonQ announced an agreement to acquire Elisity. The transaction is pending and subject to closing conditions.

An acquisition announcement changes the questions to ask before it establishes the answers. The proposed Elisity transaction belongs in a business-strategy timeline, with signing, conditions, closing and integration shown separately. It is not a new quantum-processor benchmark.

The useful investor question is what the combined organization can eventually deliver that the separate businesses could not. Product integration, customer evidence and later reporting could answer that question. A large headline value and a broad security narrative do not answer it by themselves.

Read the original agreement and look for a later closing disclosure. An expected quarter is not a completed event. Any future operating benefit needs its own evidence, and any share-price reaction needs a separate time-stamped market source.

Research question: Which integration becomes a usable customer workflow?

Documents to check: Agreement terms, conditions, consideration mechanism, closing document and subsequent operating disclosures.

What this does not establish: No completed purchase, immediate revenue synergy, price target or technical rank movement inferred.

What to follow: A closing disclosure, changed terms or measured post-close operating result.

Original sources and identity context

Read the related analysis →

Related reading: A transaction has several clocks · All-stock does not mean cost-free

IBM: workflow capability and business value are different claimsCompany development

Source dated

IBM described directed execution, a beta workflow that moves inspectable circuit preparation and post-processing into client-side steps. Check the documented access and compatibility conditions.

Directed execution is relevant to the organization of a quantum workflow. It can make choices around circuit variation and analysis more inspectable without proving that a physical processor has become faster. The beta label and the documented access conditions are part of the update.

For an investor, a software capability is not automatically a separately reported revenue source. Its possible commercial value may lie in research usability, ecosystem adoption or an easier development process. Those are interpretations to test, not financial results supplied by the announcement.

A useful follow-up identifies the workload, compares the complete workflow and states what became easier, cheaper or more reproducible. Follow these product and research developments alongside financial disclosures; a software update does not by itself establish a new financial segment.

Research question: What changes for a researcher doing the same defined job?

Documents to check: Version-specific documentation, account/backend eligibility and a matched complete-job comparison.

What this does not establish: No universal availability, hardware speedup or quantum-specific revenue estimate.

What to follow: Stable availability, compatibility changes or independently reproducible workflow evidence.

Original sources and identity context

Read the related analysis →

Rigetti: connect the materials paper to the contributionCompany development

Source dated

Fermilab reported a blinded study of 22 transmons fabricated by Fermilab, Rigetti and NIST. It examined material differences and coherence across that defined sample set.

A collaboration can be significant without belonging entirely to one participant. Read the contributor and sample roles in the blinded materials study. The paper is evidence about a defined device set and analysis, not a ready-made commercial ranking.

The possible business bridge is a process that becomes more predictable. That bridge would need controlled intervention, repeatability and eventual integration evidence. A correlation in a research study cannot supply a manufacturing yield or unit-cost improvement that the source does not report.

Ask why the research could matter to this business and which step remains unproven. A specific next milestone is more useful than inferring value from a familiar company appearing in a collaboration.

Research question: Does a controlled process change reproduce the relationship?

Documents to check: Paper affiliations, sample provenance, characterization scope and subsequent process-level results.

What this does not establish: Do not assign every sample or measured benefit to Rigetti or invent a yield increase.

What to follow: A replicated intervention, production distribution or verified system-level consequence.

Original sources and identity context

Read the related analysis →

Xanadu: place the saving inside the full algorithmCompany development

Source dated

A preprint by Xanadu-affiliated researcher Danial Motlagh proposes dense QROM encoding to reduce leading Toffoli cost under a stated workspace budget. It reports an algorithmic construction, not measured product runtime.

A data-loading construction is an algorithmic resource result. Its importance depends on how much of a useful computation uses the operation and what workspace the method requires. A better leading gate-count expression is not a measured product-runtime claim.

This distinction does not make the work irrelevant to a business. It identifies the evidence that would connect the research to practical usefulness: an implementation, a complete resource estimate or a task where the reduced operation dominates the budget.

Check the current issuer and listing separately from the paper’s author affiliation. Neither an algorithmic resource saving nor a stock-market listing establishes revenue, product speed or a share-price outcome.

Research question: Which complete workload retains the improvement after all costs are counted?

Documents to check: Research version, cost model, workspace requirements, current issuer identity and a full-workload estimate.

What this does not establish: No automatic revenue gain, product speedup, share-price forecast or unsupported listing metadata.

What to follow: Independent implementation, revised cost analysis or end-to-end task evidence.

Original sources and identity context

Read the related analysis →

A transaction has several clocksReading companion

Signing, regulatory review, closing and operational integration are different events. A timeline becomes misleading when it presents all four as one completed milestone. A date tells the reader something useful only when the state attached to it is clear.

Compare the original expected date with later source-backed changes. The earlier expectation and eventual outcome tell different parts of the transaction history.

To understand an update, ask whether a condition was satisfied, a deadline moved or the transaction closed. Another article repeating the original announcement is not an equivalent change.

Research question: Which clock moved in the newest source?

Documents to check: Original dated agreement, condition status, amended timetable and closing evidence.

What this does not establish: Expected timing must not become a completed event merely because the calendar advanced.

What to follow: A documented state transition or amended condition.

Examples and reference context

Related reading: IonQ: a transaction to follow in stages

Bookings, backlog and revenue are not interchangeableReading companion

A signed order, remaining contracted work and recognized revenue describe different parts of a business. They can all be useful, but comparing them as though they were the same quantity obscures delivery timing, cancellation conditions and accounting policy.

Before combining companies in a table, read each issuer’s definition and reporting period. A figure described as bookings may not be directly comparable with another company’s similarly named measure. A disclosed backlog can also include work delivered across several periods.

Compare figures only when the relevant filings, definitions and reporting periods are available. A contract headline or a number from a different period cannot fill a missing disclosure.

Research question: Does the figure describe orders, future work or recognized revenue?

Documents to check: Current filing definitions, period, delivery obligations and material cancellation terms.

What this does not establish: An announced contract is not automatically current-period revenue.

What to follow: A filing changes the relevant measure, definition or delivery schedule.

Examples and reference context

Related reading: IonQ: a transaction to follow in stages · Find the denominator before reading the speed claim

Quantum exposure is a business mixReading companion

A diversified company may contribute substantially to quantum research while quantum activity represents an undisclosed part of its financial results. A focused quantum company may also contain security, manufacturing or service businesses. A logo alone does not describe the exposure.

Identify the issuer and its documented activities relevant to quantum technology. A description of those activities does not establish a percentage of revenue or imply that all businesses share the same technology risk.

When an acquisition or segment disclosure changes the business mix, compare the dated descriptions before and after the change. The earlier exposure may differ from what an investor owns today.

Research question: What activity does owning this security actually expose a reader to?

Documents to check: Issuer identity, reported segments, specific products and disclosed research relationships.

What this does not establish: Do not invent a pure-play classification or quantum-revenue percentage.

What to follow: A material change in business scope or a new segment disclosure.

Examples and reference context

Related reading: IonQ: a transaction to follow in stages · Xanadu: place the saving inside the full algorithm

A roadmap should have an acceptance testReading companion

A future system size is easier to announce than a complete acceptance criterion. Ask which operations, error characteristics, connectivity and service conditions must accompany the number before the milestone can be called delivered.

Compare the original dated target with later measured evidence. An elapsed deadline is not proof of delivery, and a revised target should remain distinguishable from the original commitment.

Keep the vocabulary precise. Physical resources, encoded logical information and an operational service are different achievements. A roadmap can be useful planning evidence without being a measurement of current capability.

Research question: What observable evidence would establish that the milestone was delivered?

Documents to check: Original roadmap, measurement definition, operating conditions and subsequent delivery evidence.

What this does not establish: No physical/logical-qubit substitution or automatic success at the target date.

What to follow: A measured result meeting, revising or missing the original criterion.

Examples and reference context

A research grant is not a commercial customerReading companion

Public support can enable difficult research without demonstrating repeatable product demand. The award, its recipient, the work period and the intended deliverable are the relevant facts. A maximum funding commitment is not necessarily money already received.

A research collaboration can later lead to a commercial relationship, but the later relationship needs its own evidence. The same institution appearing in two announcements does not prove that both describe a customer order.

Use separate categories for grants, research agreements and commercial contracts. That makes the company timeline more informative and prevents a collection of unlike funding headlines from becoming a misleading sales chart.

Research question: What obligation and deliverable does the funding support?

Documents to check: Recipient, award scope, conditions, period and any actual disbursement disclosure.

What this does not establish: No recurring customer revenue or completed experiment inferred from an award.

What to follow: Published deliverables or a separately documented commercial contract.

Examples and reference context

Find the denominator before reading the speed claimReading companion

A processor-only comparison may omit setup, compilation, repeated measurements and classical analysis. A practical customer pays for an acceptable answer, not only for the most favourable interval inside the job.

Identify the input, output, accuracy requirement and resources counted on both sides. A strong component improvement can matter, but the rest of the workload determines how much it changes the total.

This is a framework for technical diligence, not evidence that a particular company has omitted costs. Apply it consistently to exciting announcements and to skeptical comparisons alike.

Research question: Which part of the complete job lies outside the reported comparison?

Documents to check: Preparation, execution, repetitions, accepted outputs, classical work and result quality.

What this does not establish: No component reduction translated directly into company productivity or total cost savings.

What to follow: A transparent matched complete-workload benchmark.

Examples and reference context

Cash runway is a scenario, not a scheduled eventReading companion

A cash balance divided by a recent cash-use rate can illustrate one scenario. It does not predict a financing date. Spending can change with facilities, acquisitions, staffing, working capital and strategy.

Check which cash balance and spending period the calculation uses, and which commitments it excludes. Without current, comparable inputs, the scenario cannot provide a reliable illustration.

Keep the result separate from a forecast or recommendation. A reader can understand the assumptions without being told that the business will inevitably raise capital on a particular date.

Research question: Which assumption most changes the scenario?

Documents to check: Current unrestricted cash, debt restrictions, cash-flow period and disclosed commitments.

What this does not establish: No invented financial inputs or deadline inferred from a simple division.

What to follow: New filings, financing terms or a disclosed spending change.

Examples and reference context

Related reading: A transaction has several clocks

All-stock does not mean cost-freeReading companion

Share consideration can conserve cash while changing ownership claims and exposure to execution risk. A contingent component adds a condition; it does not disappear because the transaction does not use an ordinary cash payment at signing.

The contract determines how consideration is measured and when it becomes due. A current quote may not be the price used by a later contractual formula. The final share issuance must be read from the relevant closing disclosure.

The useful question is what existing shareholders receive in exchange for the new claims on the business. That requires a business and contract analysis, not a claim that one payment form makes the deal free.

Research question: Which conditions determine the final consideration?

Documents to check: Contract formula, contingencies, closing terms and actual issuance.

What this does not establish: Do not derive a definitive share count from an unrelated current quote.

What to follow: Final closing consideration or a later contingent-payment disclosure.

Examples and reference context

Related reading: IonQ: a transaction to follow in stages · A transaction has several clocks

A customer count can hide concentrationReading companion

Many deployments do not reveal how much revenue depends on a small number of counterparties. A concentrated early market is not automatically a failure, but concentration and customer count answer different questions.

Read the issuer’s definitions. A deployment, trial, research partner and paying customer may not describe the same relationship. Use the company’s disclosed categories rather than normalizing them into a single unsupported adoption number.

An undisclosed concentration figure remains unknown. Its absence is not evidence of zero concentration, zero churn or a perfectly diversified customer base.

Research question: Which relationships account for the largest economic exposure?

Documents to check: Current filings, customer definitions, concentration notes and contract conditions.

What this does not establish: No zero-churn or diversification inference from a marketing count.

What to follow: A new concentration disclosure or materially changed contract.

Examples and reference context

Related reading: Bookings, backlog and revenue are not interchangeable

A paper can matter before it makes moneyReading companion

A research result can change an engineering programme before it becomes a customer-facing feature. That lag is not a reason to ignore the paper. It is a reason to keep technical and financial evidence in separate columns.

Follow the bridge: replication, controlled intervention, process transfer, integrated operation and eventual customer use. The exact sequence depends on the technology, but each step needs evidence appropriate to its claim.

Participation in an important publication is not a disclosed valuation premium. Look for a plausible mechanism of business value and the next missing proof before drawing a financial conclusion.

Research question: Which engineering step connects this research to a deliverable product?

Documents to check: Research scope, repeatable process evidence, integration and actual use.

What this does not establish: No automatic revenue, margin or valuation increase from publication.

What to follow: A verified transition from research to a defined operational capability.

Examples and reference context

Related reading: Rigetti: connect the materials paper to the contribution · Xanadu: place the saving inside the full algorithm

A market number needs its timestampReading companion

Read a quote alongside its issuer identity, exchange, currency, timestamp and data status. A displayed value may be stale even while the rest of a page is available.

If the supported provider is unavailable, use original company sources and research notes while checking the data status. An unavailable price is not zero, and a delayed value is not an executable current offer.

Check the provider attribution and the meaning of the displayed quote time. Exchange coverage, delays and adjustments can differ; a source-check date for research does not refresh a market price.

Research question: When and from which supported source was the value observed?

Documents to check: Provider contract, exchange coverage, timestamp semantics and corporate-action adjustments.

What this does not establish: No invented quote, unsupported real-time label or zero substitution for unavailable data.

What to follow: Provider refresh, outage, recovery or corrected adjustment.

Examples and reference context

Read the disagreement before choosing a winnerReading companion

Two credible results may concern different workloads, costs or operating conditions. A useful comparison explains the mismatch before placing both results on one axis.

Read hardware evidence, business disclosures and editorial interpretation separately. A missing QRank score does not establish technical inferiority, and a strong technical result does not automatically make a security attractive at an unspecified price.

A genuinely matched comparison can change the research picture. Until then, two clearly bounded results can be more useful than a universal ranking built from unlike measures.

Research question: Are the compared claims actually about the same task and acceptance condition?

Documents to check: Matched resource definitions, dates, conditions and limitations on both sides.

What this does not establish: No QRank-to-buy/sell translation or universal winner from unlike metrics.

What to follow: A directly comparable result or material correction.

Examples and reference context

SOURCES & STANDARDS

Clarity over hype.

Documented quantum activity. Original sources. A clear line between company research and market data.

Where prices come from

TradingView supplies the market board, charts and financials. Exchange data may be delayed and availability varies by listing. After a session closes, the last available quote remains. Check the provider’s market status and quote time. Use “Hide market data” to remove updating displays. Data coverage and delays

How companies are selected

This curated research directory records companies with documented quantum computing, enabling technology or quantum security activity. It uses one listing reference per profile and four exposure categories. A directory profile is not certification of a currently active listing; corporate actions and listing details must be checked against current issuer sources. Category membership is editorial classification, not a stock ranking. Private companies and ETFs are outside this company directory.

How to read the financials

Compare revenue, cash use, funding needs and dilution alongside the company’s own filings. Provider financials refer to the whole listed company. Recent listings may include predecessor or SPAC periods and have limited history. Research questions on this page are prompts for investigation, not claims of current performance.

Research dates, watchlists & corrections

The original directory cohort was reviewed on 7 September 2026. Profiles added later show their own recorded review date or “Profile review date unavailable”. Publication and research-note dates do not replace a profile review date. None is a quote timestamp. Corporate actions and provider support can change. Company follows are saved in this browser when signed out and in your account when signed in. They are not trade orders or email alerts. Read published company coverage in Your Updates. Suggest a correction

For research and general information. Not personalized investment advice. Share prices can be volatile and capital is at risk.