Skip to content
QubitWire
Saved
Skip to rankings

The quantum research index.

QRank

See what each organization has demonstrated and compare its score with others in the same sector.

Editorial research assessment, not a performance benchmark or stock rating.

Explore rankings
392 listed · 192 research profiles · 77 currently assessedWhat these counts mean

Whole-directory coverage across 8 sectors. The results below follow your selected sector and filters.

Listed
Included in the directory. A listing is not a score or endorsement.
Research profile
A dedicated page with sources and context. It may still be unscored.
Currently assessed
A complete published assessment eligible for the current ranking under Method 1.0. Reviews older than 90 days are excluded.

These groups overlap: an assessed organization is also listed. Score edition .

About QRank

Quantum, in perspective.

Explore documented maturity within each quantum sector. QRank is an editorial research assessment, not a performance benchmark or stock rating.

5 material evidence updates in the past 7 days →
SECTOR INTELLIGENCE

Computing hardware

Who is turning quantum hardware into usable systems?

15 assessed in computing hardware · Score edition 23 Sept 2026 · Method 1.0

Your question: Which organizations match computing hardware and my filters?

Search companies, technologies or applications. Arrow keys explore suggestions. Escape keeps your search and closes suggestions.
Rankings · 15
15 assessed organizations in computing hardware. Showing 1–12.
Rank1(tie)
Superconducting quantum annealing and hybrid optimizationCanada / United States
85.0 /100 · editorial assessment

Programs an energy landscape and samples candidate solutions with superconducting flux qubits. Leap also offers solvers that combine classical processing with quantum annealing.

Cloud accessResearch brief reviewed · brief refresh dueEvidence list: 11 source pages
Capability 3 / 4
Delivery 4 / 4
Use in practice 3 / 4
Integration 4 / 4

Limitation: An annealer does not execute arbitrary gate-model circuits. Reported hybrid business outcomes do not by themselves establish quantum speedup; the separate gate-model program is not validated by annealing results.

Full company research →
85.0/ 100
External corroboration

External sources support at least half of the weighted assessment. They can include collaborators; this does not imply independent replication or technical superiority.

5 assessment sourcesAssessment reviewed Assessment refresh due
Why this position? for D-Wave Quantum

This score reflects documented maturity using the computing hardware weighting.

Capability 40% weight
3 / 4 · 30 points
Delivery 25% weight
4 / 4 · 25 points
Use in practice 20% weight
3 / 4 · 15 points
Integration 15% weight
4 / 4 · 15 points

Strength: An operating cloud service, detailed hardware controls and external experimental use give researchers concrete ways to work with annealing.

Limitation: An annealer does not execute arbitrary gate-model circuits. Reported hybrid business outcomes do not by themselves establish quantum speedup; the separate gate-model program is not validated by annealing results.

External corroboration · Assessment reviewed
Score edition · Method 1.0. Editorial opinion within this sector, not a probability or performance benchmark.

Read the assessment evidence →Full company research →
Rank1(tie)
Superconducting gate-model processors and quantum cloudUnited States
85.0 /100 · editorial assessment

Combines programmable quantum processors with Qiskit tools, cloud job execution and device calibration records, giving developers a route from circuit design to experiments on hardware.

Open and paid cloud plansResearch brief reviewed · brief refresh dueContext updated Evidence list: 9 source pages
Capability 3 / 4
Delivery 4 / 4
Use in practice 3 / 4
Integration 4 / 4

Limitation: The experiment validates a particular physics workflow. Noise, sampling overhead and classical verification limits still matter; it does not establish a general commercial speed advantage.

Full company research →
85.0/ 100
External corroboration

External sources support at least half of the weighted assessment. They can include collaborators; this does not imply independent replication or technical superiority.

3 assessment sourcesAssessment reviewed Assessment refresh dueWhat changed? →
Why this position? for IBM Quantum

This score reflects documented maturity using the computing hardware weighting.

Capability 40% weight
3 / 4 · 30 points
Delivery 25% weight
4 / 4 · 25 points
Use in practice 20% weight
3 / 4 · 15 points
Integration 15% weight
4 / 4 · 15 points

Strength: Documented access paths, hardware calibration reporting and substantial experimental circuit execution.

Limitation: Access, calibration and dynamic-circuit support depend on the selected plan and backend. The reviewed physics experiment does not establish commercial advantage across applications.

External corroboration · Assessment reviewed
Score edition · Method 1.0. Editorial opinion within this sector, not a probability or performance benchmark.

Read the assessment evidence →Full company research →
Rank1(tie)
Superconducting gate-model systems and cloud accessFinland / Germany
85.0 /100 · editorial assessment

Uses controlled superconducting circuits to execute gates, delivered through cloud services and installed systems.

Cloud and installed systemsResearch brief reviewed · brief refresh dueEvidence list: 9 source pages
Capability 3 / 4
Delivery 4 / 4
Use in practice 3 / 4
Integration 4 / 4

Limitation: Results on Q-Exa and VTT Q50 apply to those systems and test conditions. Calibration variation affects circuit performance; future larger-machine announcements are not treated as completed delivery.

Full company research →
85.0/ 100
External corroboration

External sources support at least half of the weighted assessment. They can include collaborators; this does not imply independent replication or technical superiority.

5 assessment sourcesAssessment reviewed Assessment refresh due
Why this position? for IQM Quantum Computers

This score reflects documented maturity using the computing hardware weighting.

Capability 40% weight
3 / 4 · 30 points
Delivery 25% weight
4 / 4 · 25 points
Use in practice 20% weight
3 / 4 · 15 points
Integration 15% weight
4 / 4 · 15 points

Strength: External operational evidence and detailed, maintained access and calibration documentation.

Limitation: Results on Q-Exa and VTT Q50 apply to those systems and test conditions. Calibration variation affects circuit performance; future larger-machine announcements are not treated as completed delivery.

External corroboration · Assessment reviewed
Score edition · Method 1.0. Editorial opinion within this sector, not a probability or performance benchmark.

Read the assessment evidence →Full company research →
Rank1(tie)
Trapped-ion QCCD processors and hybrid quantum softwareUnited States / United Kingdom
85.0 /100 · editorial assessment

Provides programmable trapped-ion computers and tools for circuits with mid-circuit measurement, reset and classical feedback, alongside emulators for development.

Subscription hardware and emulatorsResearch brief reviewed · brief refresh dueEvidence list: 14 source pages
Capability 3 / 4
Delivery 4 / 4
Use in practice 3 / 4
Integration 4 / 4

Limitation: The Jülich study is a preprint with limited samples. Above 48 qubits its reference is random sampling, not exact ground truth; those results do not establish optimal solutions or general application advantage.

Full company research →
85.0/ 100
Primarily organization-sourced

The assessment is primarily supported by organization-originated evidence. External evidence does not meet the published half-of-weight threshold.

4 assessment sourcesAssessment reviewed Assessment refresh due
Why this position? for Quantinuum

This score reflects documented maturity using the computing hardware weighting.

Capability 40% weight
3 / 4 · 30 points
Delivery 25% weight
4 / 4 · 25 points
Use in practice 20% weight
3 / 4 · 15 points
Integration 15% weight
4 / 4 · 15 points

Strength: Measured component errors, programmable connectivity and commercial access backed by technical documentation.

Limitation: Reported gate fidelity and random-circuit performance are not interchangeable with useful application advantage or fault-tolerant scale.

Primarily organization-sourced · Assessment reviewed
Score edition · Method 1.0. Editorial opinion within this sector, not a probability or performance benchmark.

Read the assessment evidence →Full company research →
Rank1(tie)
Neutral-atom analog systems and gate-model research processorsUnited States
85.0 /100 · editorial assessment

Traps individual atoms with light and controls their interactions. Aquila programs a physical quantum evolution; Gemini uses gates and atom movement for digital and logical-qubit experiments.

Cloud access; digital pilotsResearch brief reviewed · brief refresh dueEvidence list: 7 source pages
Capability 3 / 4
Delivery 4 / 4
Use in practice 3 / 4
Integration 4 / 4

Limitation: Aquila cloud access does not provide Gemini’s gate-model or logical-qubit capabilities. Logical magic-state distillation is a component of fault tolerance, not a completed general-purpose fault-tolerant computer.

Full company research →
85.0/ 100
Primarily organization-sourced

The assessment is primarily supported by organization-originated evidence. External evidence does not meet the published half-of-weight threshold.

5 assessment sourcesAssessment reviewed Assessment refresh due
Why this position? for QuEra Computing

This score reflects documented maturity using the computing hardware weighting.

Capability 40% weight
3 / 4 · 30 points
Delivery 25% weight
4 / 4 · 25 points
Use in practice 20% weight
3 / 4 · 15 points
Integration 15% weight
4 / 4 · 15 points

Strength: The company combines a documented public analog workflow with peer-reviewed progress in logical operations on a separate digital processor.

Limitation: Aquila cloud access does not provide Gemini’s gate-model or logical-qubit capabilities. Logical magic-state distillation is a component of fault tolerance, not a completed general-purpose fault-tolerant computer.

Primarily organization-sourced · Assessment reviewed
Score edition · Method 1.0. Editorial opinion within this sector, not a probability or performance benchmark.

Read the assessment evidence →Full company research →
Rank1(tie)
Superconducting gate-model processors with a modular chiplet architectureUnited States
85.0 /100 · editorial assessment

Uses microwave-controlled superconducting qubits to execute quantum circuits. Its Cepheus architecture connects smaller chiplets to form a larger processor.

Cloud accessResearch brief reviewed · brief refresh dueEvidence list: 8 source pages
Capability 3 / 4
Delivery 4 / 4
Use in practice 3 / 4
Integration 4 / 4

Limitation: Physical qubit count and launch gate fidelity do not establish useful circuit depth or fault tolerance. An August 2026 external preprint finds substantial route-dependent performance; its results are specific to the tested conditions.

Full company research →
85.0/ 100
External corroboration

External sources support at least half of the weighted assessment. They can include collaborators; this does not imply independent replication or technical superiority.

4 assessment sourcesAssessment reviewed Assessment refresh due
Why this position? for Rigetti Computing

This score reflects documented maturity using the computing hardware weighting.

Capability 40% weight
3 / 4 · 30 points
Delivery 25% weight
4 / 4 · 25 points
Use in practice 20% weight
3 / 4 · 15 points
Integration 15% weight
4 / 4 · 15 points

Strength: Public access and device-characterization workflows support reproducible experiments on a modular superconducting processor.

Limitation: Physical qubit count and launch gate fidelity do not establish useful circuit depth or fault tolerance. An August 2026 external preprint finds substantial route-dependent performance; its results are specific to the tested conditions.

External corroboration · Assessment reviewed
Score edition · Method 1.0. Editorial opinion within this sector, not a probability or performance benchmark.

Read the assessment evidence →Full company research →
Rank7
Trapped-ion processors and cloud quantum computingUnited States
81.3 /100 · editorial assessment

Makes programmable trapped-ion hardware available through its cloud and partner platforms, supporting circuit experiments and hybrid quantum-classical research workflows.

Direct cloud and Amazon BraketResearch brief reviewed · brief refresh dueEvidence list: 17 source pages
Capability 3 / 4
Delivery 4 / 4
Use in practice 3 / 4
Integration 3 / 4

Limitation: The study's gains depend on the chosen baseline and amortization assumptions. Simulations up to 150 qubits are not 150-qubit Forte hardware runs, and the result is not universal quantum advantage.

Full company research →
81.3/ 100
Primarily organization-sourced

The assessment is primarily supported by organization-originated evidence. External evidence does not meet the published half-of-weight threshold.

4 assessment sourcesAssessment reviewed Assessment refresh dueWhat changed? →
Why this position? for IonQ

This score reflects documented maturity using the computing hardware weighting.

Capability 40% weight
3 / 4 · 30 points
Delivery 25% weight
4 / 4 · 25 points
Use in practice 20% weight
3 / 4 · 15 points
Integration 15% weight
3 / 4 · 11.25 points

Strength: Concrete cloud access paths and hardware use in documented hybrid workflows.

Limitation: The application study combines simulations and hardware. Reported gains depend on a chosen classical baseline and reusing a quantum-generated ordering across many solves; they do not establish a universal speed advantage.

Primarily organization-sourced · Assessment reviewed
Score edition · Method 1.0. Editorial opinion within this sector, not a probability or performance benchmark.

Read the assessment evidence →Full company research →
Rank8
Single-photon processors and cloud accessFrance
80.0 /100 · editorial assessment

Supplies photonic computing systems, cloud access and the Perceval development framework.

Cloud and institutional accessResearch brief reviewed Evidence list: 6 source pages
Capability 3 / 4
Delivery 4 / 4
Use in practice 2 / 4
Integration 4 / 4

Limitation: Photon counts and encoded gate qubits are not interchangeable. Earlier Ascella benchmarks do not automatically describe Lucy or Belenos; loss and postselection remain material. The October 13 NVQLink announcement previews a simulated-QPU exhibition at GTC Berlin on October 20–22; it does not supply a new physical-QPU benchmark or measured quantum advantage.

Full company research →
80.0/ 100
Primarily organization-sourced

The assessment is primarily supported by organization-originated evidence. External evidence does not meet the published half-of-weight threshold.

4 assessment sourcesAssessment reviewed Assessment refresh dueWhat changed? →
Why this position? for Quandela

This score reflects documented maturity using the computing hardware weighting.

Capability 40% weight
3 / 4 · 30 points
Delivery 25% weight
4 / 4 · 25 points
Use in practice 20% weight
2 / 4 · 10 points
Integration 15% weight
4 / 4 · 15 points

Strength: Published hardware experiments connect to maintained software and named external infrastructure.

Limitation: Ascella benchmarks do not establish identical performance on Lucy or Belenos. Postselection, photon losses and sampling cost limit interpretation; these sources demonstrate neither fault tolerance nor commercial advantage.

Primarily organization-sourced · Assessment reviewed
Score edition · Method 1.0. Editorial opinion within this sector, not a probability or performance benchmark.

Read the assessment evidence →Full company research →
Rank9
Superconducting coaxmon processors and hosted quantum accessUnited Kingdom
75.0 /100 · editorial assessment

Executes circuits on superconducting coaxmon qubits and connects the quantum processor to cloud or high-performance computing workflows.

Cloud and HPC installationsResearch brief reviewed · brief refresh dueEvidence list: 5 source pages
Capability 3 / 4
Delivery 3 / 4
Use in practice 3 / 4
Integration 3 / 4

Limitation: The error-budget result concerns selected pairs on one device generation. HPC integration and commercial access do not demonstrate computational advantage, and hardware capability should not be inferred from emulator results.

Full company research →
75.0/ 100
Primarily organization-sourced

The assessment is primarily supported by organization-originated evidence. External evidence does not meet the published half-of-weight threshold.

5 assessment sourcesAssessment reviewed Assessment refresh due
Why this position? for Oxford Quantum Circuits (OQC)

This score reflects documented maturity using the computing hardware weighting.

Capability 40% weight
3 / 4 · 30 points
Delivery 25% weight
3 / 4 · 18.75 points
Use in practice 20% weight
3 / 4 · 15 points
Integration 15% weight
3 / 4 · 11.25 points

Strength: A measured error-improvement study paired with operational integration evidence.

Limitation: The error-budget result concerns selected pairs on one device generation. HPC integration and commercial access do not demonstrate computational advantage, and hardware capability should not be inferred from emulator results.

Primarily organization-sourced · Assessment reviewed
Score edition · Method 1.0. Editorial opinion within this sector, not a probability or performance benchmark.

Read the assessment evidence →Full company research →
Rank10
Neutral-atom analog quantum processors and cloud programming toolsFrance
71.3 /100 · editorial assessment

Arranges laser-trapped atoms and controls their collective interactions to study quantum dynamics or encode optimization problems. Pulser defines the pulse sequence submitted to a compatible device.

Cloud and installed systemsResearch brief reviewed · brief refresh dueEvidence list: 10 source pages
Capability 2 / 4
Delivery 4 / 4
Use in practice 3 / 4
Integration 3 / 4

Limitation: Current cloud evidence supports constrained analog execution. Simulation libraries and digital-analog roadmaps do not establish an unrestricted fault-tolerant gate-model service, and the cited external use does not demonstrate computational advantage.

Full company research →
71.3/ 100
External corroboration

External sources support at least half of the weighted assessment. They can include collaborators; this does not imply independent replication or technical superiority.

5 assessment sourcesAssessment reviewed Assessment refresh due
Why this position? for Pasqal

This score reflects documented maturity using the computing hardware weighting.

Capability 40% weight
2 / 4 · 20 points
Delivery 25% weight
4 / 4 · 25 points
Use in practice 20% weight
3 / 4 · 15 points
Integration 15% weight
3 / 4 · 11.25 points

Strength: A documented route from pulse design to real hardware, with a national research center reporting use of an installed system.

Limitation: Current cloud evidence supports constrained analog execution. Simulation libraries and digital-analog roadmaps do not establish an unrestricted fault-tolerant gate-model service, and the cited external use does not demonstrate computational advantage.

External corroboration · Assessment reviewed
Score edition · Method 1.0. Editorial opinion within this sector, not a probability or performance benchmark.

Read the assessment evidence →Full company research →
Rank11
Neutral-atom gate-model computing and logical-qubit experimentsUnited States / United Kingdom
70.0 /100 · editorial assessment

Uses laser-controlled cesium atoms for digital circuits, with Superstaq compiling programs to the hardware’s operations.

Cloud and national testbedResearch brief reviewed · brief refresh dueEvidence list: 11 source pages
Capability 3 / 4
Delivery 3 / 4
Use in practice 2 / 4
Integration 3 / 4

Limitation: Postselected error detection does not establish general fault tolerance or commercial advantage. Testbed installation is distinct from repeated external application outcomes.

Full company research →
70.0/ 100
Primarily organization-sourced

The assessment is primarily supported by organization-originated evidence. External evidence does not meet the published half-of-weight threshold.

5 assessment sourcesAssessment reviewed Assessment refresh due
Why this position? for Infleqtion

This score reflects documented maturity using the computing hardware weighting.

Capability 40% weight
3 / 4 · 30 points
Delivery 25% weight
3 / 4 · 18.75 points
Use in practice 20% weight
2 / 4 · 10 points
Integration 15% weight
3 / 4 · 11.25 points

Strength: A concrete hardware application with disclosed encoding limits and a documented software access path.

Limitation: Postselected error detection does not establish general fault tolerance or commercial advantage. Testbed installation is distinct from repeated external application outcomes.

Primarily organization-sourced · Assessment reviewed
Score edition · Method 1.0. Editorial opinion within this sector, not a probability or performance benchmark.

Read the assessment evidence →Full company research →
Rank12
Superconducting processors and quantum error correction researchUnited States
68.8 /100 · editorial assessment

Develops quantum hardware and error-correction methods, while selected research partners use Willow for programmable scientific experiments.

Selected research partnersResearch brief reviewed Evidence list: 6 source pages
Capability 3 / 4
Delivery 2 / 4
Use in practice 3 / 4
Integration 3 / 4

Limitation: A better-protected logical memory does not by itself demonstrate the complete set of fault-tolerant operations needed for useful algorithms. Simulation results and memory results measure different capabilities.

Full company research →
68.8/ 100
Primarily organization-sourced

The assessment is primarily supported by organization-originated evidence. External evidence does not meet the published half-of-weight threshold.

4 assessment sourcesAssessment reviewed Assessment refresh dueWhat changed? →
Why this position? for Google Quantum AI

This score reflects documented maturity using the computing hardware weighting.

Capability 40% weight
3 / 4 · 30 points
Delivery 25% weight
2 / 4 · 12.5 points
Use in practice 20% weight
3 / 4 · 15 points
Integration 15% weight
3 / 4 · 11.25 points

Strength: Peer-reviewed error-correction evidence and detailed programmable hardware experiments.

Limitation: Willow is not generally available to the public, and a logical-memory milestone is not a universal fault-tolerant computer.

Primarily organization-sourced · Assessment reviewed
Score edition · Method 1.0. Editorial opinion within this sector, not a probability or performance benchmark.

Read the assessment evidence →Full company research →
Since your review

Scope: Computing hardware. 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.

Public 7-day, 30-day & full history →
Coverage, methodology & sector field guide

Equal scores share a position within their sector.

15 assessed / 72 listed

Directory inclusion is separate from assessment.

A field guide to this sectorKnow what to compare

Match the machine to the experiment

Gate-based circuits, analog simulation and annealing offer different controls and solve different classes of problems. A larger physical-qubit count alone does not establish better useful performance.

Gate model
Programs a sequence of quantum gates.
Analog simulation
Programs an interacting physical system to model its dynamics.
Logical qubit
Quantum information protected by an error-correcting encoding in physical hardware, often across multiple physical qubits.
AWS: quantum computing models

Three questions worth asking

  1. Can you access the named system today, and under which plan?
  2. Does the result report errors, circuit depth and a credible classical baseline?
  3. Are the qubits physical or logical, and what operations were actually demonstrated?
QubitWire’s editorial checklist. See company evidence for specific claims.
Four checks before comparing a hardware claim

Use these questions when reading a company’s sources. They explain comparisons; they do not assign or change a QRank score. Every numerical example below is synthetic.

Best device or typical device?

What population does the headline number describe?

A selected result and a median answer different questions. Compare the same statistic, selection rule, measurement method and population before ordering two devices.

Synthetic sample: five coherence times are 40, 50, 60, 70 and 100 microseconds. The best is 100; the median is 60. Both describe this sample, but neither establishes the performance of every qubit or a useful circuit.

Ask for: Find the sample size, tested device set, excluded measurements, distribution and calibration date. If only the best value is disclosed, leave the median unknown.

NIST: defining mean, median and other measures of location

Link to this check
Tested alone or operating together?

Were nearby qubits active during the measurement?

Operating a gate alone and operating it alongside other gates can expose different unwanted interactions. Simultaneous benchmarking explicitly tests an operating context that an isolated measurement does not establish.

Synthetic comparison: an error estimate rises from 0.2% in isolation to 0.8% with neighboring operations active. That is a 0.6 percentage-point change, or four times the original estimate. Without the method and uncertainty, those two numbers do not diagnose the cause.

Ask for: Find the active qubit set, simultaneous operations, benchmark protocol, uncertainty and calibration window. Do not compare an isolated best case with a simultaneous average as though they were the same test.

Gambetta et al.: individual and simultaneous randomized benchmarking

Link to this check
Error per gate, per cycle or per task?

What exactly counts as one opportunity for error?

A physical-gate error, a logical-cycle error and an application failure rate use different units and protocols. Keep the operation, code and decoding conditions with the result. A smaller percentage with a different denominator does not settle a comparison.

Synthetic classical event model: if ten independent operations each have a 1% chance of a flagged failure, the chance of at least one flag is 1 − 0.99¹⁰, about 9.56%. This is not a conversion from quantum gate infidelity to circuit failure: coherent errors, correlations and cancellation can break that interpretation.

Ask for: Find the error definition, benchmark, number of repetitions and confidence interval. For logical results, also find code distance, cycle definition, decoding method and any discarded trials.

Magesan et al.: the assumptions of interleaved gate benchmarking

Link to this check
Fast operation or fast complete job?

Where does the reported stopwatch start and stop?

Circuit execution is one part of a complete experiment. Preparing the job, waiting for access, repeating measurements and processing the output can each take time. Device usage and elapsed time are also different accounting quantities.

Synthetic job: 1,000 repetitions of a 50-microsecond gate sequence contribute 0.05 seconds. Add 0.25 seconds for readout/reset, 2 seconds of preparation, 10 seconds waiting and 1 second processing: the complete toy job takes 13.3 seconds.

Ask for: Find included stages, repetitions, error-mitigation work, queue treatment and output-quality requirement. Compare equivalent completed tasks before interpreting a speedup.

IBM Quantum: workload usage and execution-time components

Change the assumptions in the experiment-time lesson →

Link to this check

Background sources checked 2026-10-16. The examples are QubitWire teaching calculations, not results from the cited experiments.

Common QRank questions
Does the highest score mean the fastest computer?
No. QRank assesses documented maturity within a sector. Performance depends on the product, workload and test conditions.
Why does a listed organization have no score?
A listing and a complete assessment are different. No published assessment means no score has been published; it does not mean poor performance. An expired assessment can remain in a profile as history.
Does a larger qubit count mean better performance?
No. Physical and error-corrected logical qubits describe different things. Operations, errors and the resources needed for the task matter too.
Do more sources mean stronger proof?
Several pages can describe the same experiment. Company sources can document useful results; external authors may be collaborators. Neither link counts nor external-source badges establish independent replication. The evidence list counts distinct assessment and profile-research URLs; guides can link to additional context.
Does a new source update the score?
No. Research context and assessment reviews are separate. Scores change only when the criterion inputs are reviewed and a change is recorded. Source checks and formatting edits do not renew an assessment date.
Why is an assessment date older than the research?
A profile can include later context while retaining its earlier score review. A review is due after 30 days; assessments older than 90 days leave the current ranking. The date does not promise a future review.
How do I check access and pricing?
Use the linked official route for the named product. Plans, regions, eligibility and features can change; a simulation, pilot or partner integration does not establish public hardware access.
How can I suggest a correction?
Use a claim’s correction link and include the product, source location and proposed change, or email contact@qubitwire.com. Submitting evidence does not automatically change a score.
What matters in this sectorView scoring weights

A maturity index across hardware approaches. Scores do not compare raw qubits or prove one machine is faster.

40%Capability

Demonstrated system behavior, workload results and stated error conditions.

25%Delivery

Access to an actual system, operational documentation and support.

20%Use in practice

Named external experiments or deployments with reported outcomes.

15%Integration

Usable tooling, developer documentation and maintained integrations.

A position should be explainable.

Scores express the QubitWire team’s opinions about documented maturity, using sector-specific weights. They are research-informed judgments, not predictions or objective performance measurements.

Browse all 192 research profiles by sector
Read, question, follow the source

What would the next piece of evidence show?

Company guides trace the path from an announcement to a measured component, accepted system or exact product certification.

Company evidence guideIQM: when is an installed system accepted?Follow an installed quantum system from supplier delivery to customer acceptance.Context reviewed

It identifies the traded instrument and its relationship to the underlying shares. Readers should use that instrument when checking issuer filings or a licensed quote provider; a warrant or Helsinki share line needs its own identity and market metadata.

Full company guide, sources and limits →
Company evidence guideXanadu: what does a foundry partnership establish?Connect the new foundry agreement to the measurements that would establish manufacturing readiness.Context reviewed

It establishes the agreement described by the parties. Production readiness needs additional evidence about fabricated devices, yield, repeatability, packaging and accepted system performance. The record deliberately treats those as separate steps.

Full company guide, sources and limits →
Company evidence guidePasqal: what runs on an analog quantum processor?The cited issuer identity and the task a reader can execute using an analog platform.Context reviewed

Yes, as transaction history with its original date and status. Use the later completed-transaction and reporting evidence to distinguish the completed state from the earlier proposal.

Full company guide, sources and limits →
Company evidence guideAlice & Bob: what can researchers measure on the testbed?Use the Helium announcement to ask precise questions about encoded experiments and partner access.Context reviewed

No. The complete encoded operation still has to account for the error processes that remain, including those associated with control, measurement and correction. The value of a biased-noise architecture depends on how those parts work together.

Full company guide, sources and limits →
Company evidence guideDiraq: from fabricated devices to usable qubitsRead the eight-qubit foundry result through the denominators that manufacturing requires.Context reviewed

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.

Full company guide, sources and limits →
Company evidence guideQuantum Motion: what makes a system installation reproducible?Turn a full-stack deployment claim into a record of what users can reproduce.Context reviewed

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.

Full company guide, sources and limits →
Company evidence guideOxford Ionics: how to read its benchmark historyKeep original experiments, acquisition history and later integration results in separate dated records.Context reviewed

No. It changes the organizational context, not the experiment that was performed. The result should retain its original provenance and be linked to the current ownership timeline.

Full company guide, sources and limits →
Company evidence guideQblox: what does timing mean in a control system?Evaluate control electronics against an experiment’s signals and timing obligations.Context reviewed

The channels must support the required amplitude, noise, bandwidth, synchronization and readout relationships. A larger count cannot answer those compatibility questions by itself.

Full company guide, sources and limits →
Company evidence guideQuantum Machines: why do calibration results need software versions?Trace a calibration claim through its controller, software versions, fit and final validation.Context reviewed

It can alter waveform construction, fitting, scheduling, parameter selection or result handling. A version record helps separate those changes from physical-device changes and makes a later comparison more meaningful.

Full company guide, sources and limits →
Company evidence guideBluefors: which parts of a quantum system need cooling?A cryogenic partnership becomes useful when the cooled subsystem and thermal load are explicit.Context reviewed

The temperature requirements belong to particular components and detectors, not to the word photonic as a whole. A system-level description should identify those components and their operating conditions.

Full company guide, sources and limits →
Company evidence guideArqit: what does a quantum-safe product protect?Classify ARQQ through its security products and examine the trust boundary behind the label.Context reviewed

No. These security products are intended to address cryptographic threats, including future quantum threats. The business and technical evidence therefore centre on deployment, assurance and integration rather than processor benchmarks.

Full company guide, sources and limits →
Company evidence guideSEALSQ: how can a product certification be checked?Follow each chip from a certification target to an exact, checkable assurance record.Context reviewed

No. It states planned milestones. Completion requires the relevant authoritative record and the exact product configuration to which it applies.

Full company guide, sources and limits →