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

Error control

Who is making quantum errors more manageable?

3 assessed in error control · Score edition 23 Sept 2026 · Method 1.0

Your question: Which organizations match error control and my filters?

Search companies, technologies or applications. Arrow keys explore suggestions. Escape keeps your search and closes suggestions.
Rankings · 3
3 assessed organizations in error control. Showing 1–3.
Rank1
Real-time quantum error correction and decodingUnited Kingdom / United States
75.0 /100 · editorial assessment

Builds the classical processing that interprets repeated quantum error-check measurements. Deltaflow connects decoding hardware to a quantum control system; Deltakit supplies software for designing, simulating and analyzing QEC experiments.

Start with open-source DeltakitResearch brief reviewed · brief refresh dueContext updated Evidence list: 8 source pages
Capability 3 / 4
Delivery 3 / 4
Use in practice 3 / 4
Integration 3 / 4

Limitation: The September integration tests the physical controller-decoder path with emulated measurement data, so its latency results do not establish live-qubit error suppression. The separate qubit experiment is also scoped; neither establishes a complete fault-tolerant computer or utility-scale operation.

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.

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

This score reflects documented maturity using the error control weighting.

Capability 45% weight
3 / 4 · 33.75 points
Delivery 25% weight
3 / 4 · 18.75 points
Use in practice 15% weight
3 / 4 · 11.25 points
Integration 15% weight
3 / 4 · 11.25 points

Strength: Peer-reviewed hardware integration and measured decoding latency.

Limitation: The cited demonstration uses an eight-qubit stability experiment; it is not a universal fault-tolerant computer or proof of utility-scale deployment.

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 →
Rank2
Quantum error mitigation and suppressionIsrael
65.0 /100 · editorial assessment

QESEM characterizes device noise, optimizes circuit execution and combines additional measurements with classical processing to estimate observables with uncertainty bars.

Explore the QESEM Qiskit FunctionResearch brief reviewed · brief refresh dueEvidence list: 4 source pages
Capability 3 / 4
Delivery 2 / 4
Use in practice 2 / 4
Integration 3 / 4

Limitation: Error mitigation improves estimated results; it does not create protected logical qubits. Reliability depends on characterization and validation, and the accuracy target and circuit volume affect quantum runtime.

Full company research →
65.0/ 100
Primarily organization-sourced

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

3 assessment sourcesAssessment reviewed Assessment refresh due
Why this position? for Qedma

This score reflects documented maturity using the error control weighting.

Capability 45% weight
3 / 4 · 33.75 points
Delivery 25% weight
2 / 4 · 12.5 points
Use in practice 15% weight
2 / 4 · 7.5 points
Integration 15% weight
3 / 4 · 11.25 points

Strength: Public implementation documentation, platform integration and scoped experimental evidence.

Limitation: Error mitigation is distinct from logical-qubit error correction. The July result is a preprint for a particular physics workload, not universal quantum advantage; runtime overhead and access restrictions apply.

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 →
Rank3
Fault-tolerance design and simulation softwareGermany
63.8 /100 · editorial assessment

Plaquette lets hardware teams compare error-correcting codes and architectures under device-specific noise, including leakage and coherent errors that simpler noise models can miss.

Explore Plaquette licensingResearch brief reviewed · brief refresh dueEvidence list: 4 source pages
Capability 2 / 4
Delivery 3 / 4
Use in practice 3 / 4
Integration 3 / 4

Limitation: Predicted logical error rates depend on the hardware model and simulation assumptions. Software adoption and simulated fault tolerance do not establish a working fault-tolerant quantum computer.

Full company research →
63.8/ 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 due
Why this position? for QC Design

This score reflects documented maturity using the error control weighting.

Capability 45% weight
2 / 4 · 22.5 points
Delivery 25% weight
3 / 4 · 18.75 points
Use in practice 15% weight
3 / 4 · 11.25 points
Integration 15% weight
3 / 4 · 11.25 points

Strength: Customer-confirmed software adoption across neutral-atom and carbon-nanotube platforms, supported by a public technical framework.

Limitation: Simulated logical performance depends on the noise model; the July paper is a preprint and does not prove a working fault-tolerant quantum computer. Customer counts, revenue and production impact are not established here.

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: Error control. 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
3 assessed / 4 listed

Directory inclusion is separate from assessment.

A field guide to this sectorKnow what to compare

Separate correction, decoding and mitigation

Error mitigation estimates less noisy answers; error correction protects encoded quantum information. Decoder and simulation tools support that process but do not by themselves establish a fault-tolerant computer.

Decoder
Interprets error-detection measurements to infer corrections.
Fault tolerance
Computing designed to remain reliable despite component errors.
IBM: fault-tolerant quantum computing

Three questions worth asking

  1. Was error suppression measured on hardware or predicted by simulation?
  2. What are the physical-qubit, runtime and sampling overheads?
  3. Does the demonstration include real-time decoding and operations beyond memory?
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

Correction, decoding and error mitigation are distinct. This sector measures documented maturity, not a claim of fault tolerance.

45%Capability

Measured error suppression or decoder performance, with overhead and assumptions disclosed.

25%Delivery

Accessible tools, decoder products or services with technical documentation.

15%Use in practice

Named hardware integrations or externally documented use.

15%Integration

Code and hardware compatibility, interfaces and reusable research tools.

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 →