Skip to content
QubitWire
Skip to rankings

The quantum research index.

QRank

Quantum, in perspective.

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

Explore rankings
organizations listed
335
profiles assessed
77
sectors
8
Score edition 10 material evidence updates in the past 7 days →
SECTOR INTELLIGENCE

Software & applications

Which tools turn quantum research into something people can use?

22 assessed in software & applications · Edition 23 Sept 2026 · Method 1.0

A field guide to this sectorKnow what to compare

Start with a workload and a baseline

Circuit design, execution tools and application research play different roles. A result on a classical simulator is distinct from an experiment on quantum hardware.

Compilation
Translates a program into instructions for a target device.
Hybrid workflow
Combines classical and quantum processing.

Three questions worth asking

  1. Does the tool support your intended hardware and workflow?
  2. Does the result count sampling, mitigation and classical processing costs?
  3. Can someone outside the company reproduce or use the workflow?
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.

What matters in this sectorView scoring weights

Distinguishes simulations, hardware experiments and production use. Quantum advantage is never inferred from a product launch.

30%Capability

Application results with resources, baselines and limitations stated.

25%Delivery

An accessible, maintained product or service with documentation.

30%Use in practice

Specific external trials or repeated use with reported results.

15%Integration

Hardware compatibility, reusable tools and developer support.

Search companies, technologies or applications. Arrow keys explore suggestions. Escape keeps your search and closes suggestions.
Rankings · 22
22 assessed organizations. Showing 1–12.

Equal scores share a position within their sector.

22 assessed / 63 listed

Directory inclusion is separate from assessment.

Rank1(tie)
Managed quantum cloud access and hybrid-job orchestrationUnited States

Provides a common access layer for supported processors, classical simulators and jobs combining quantum tasks with classical computing.

AWS account and usage-based servicesResearch reviewed · research refresh due4 linked sources
Capability 3 / 4
Delivery 4 / 4
Use in practice 3 / 4
Integration 4 / 4

Limitation: Access does not make different processors interchangeable. Queues, calibration, gate support, shots and classical execution affect results and total cost.

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?

This score reflects documented maturity using the software & applications weighting.

Capability 30% weight
3 / 4 · 22.5 points
Delivery 25% weight
4 / 4 · 25 points
Use in practice 30% weight
3 / 4 · 22.5 points
Integration 15% weight
4 / 4 · 15 points

Strength: Current device discovery, calibration queries and managed hybrid-job resources.

Limitation: Access does not make different processors interchangeable. Queues, calibration, gate support, shots and classical execution affect results and total cost.

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)
Quantum cloud workflows and fault-tolerant resource estimationUnited States

Helps developers write quantum programs, submit supported workloads to cloud providers and explore the resources future error-corrected machines would need.

Open QDK; Azure workspace for cloud jobsResearch reviewed · research refresh due4 linked sources
Capability 3 / 4
Delivery 4 / 4
Use in practice 3 / 4
Integration 4 / 4

Limitation: Resource estimates describe assumed future architectures, not delivered fault-tolerant execution. Cloud performance remains provider- and workload-specific.

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?

This score reflects documented maturity using the software & applications weighting.

Capability 30% weight
3 / 4 · 22.5 points
Delivery 25% weight
4 / 4 · 25 points
Use in practice 30% weight
3 / 4 · 22.5 points
Integration 15% weight
4 / 4 · 15 points

Strength: A documented development environment connects quantum programming, hardware submission and resource modeling.

Limitation: Resource estimates describe assumed future architectures, not delivered fault-tolerant execution. Cloud performance remains provider- and workload-specific.

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)
Hybrid programming and GPU-accelerated circuit simulationUnited States

Lets developers express quantum routines and combine them with classical computing, then select a simulator or supported quantum-hardware backend.

Open SDK; provider accounts for QPUsResearch reviewed · research refresh due4 linked sources
Capability 3 / 4
Delivery 4 / 4
Use in practice 3 / 4
Integration 4 / 4

Limitation: GPU simulation runs on classical hardware. MPS approximation and circuit entanglement affect accuracy and cost; simulator scale is not delivered quantum-computer capacity.

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?

This score reflects documented maturity using the software & applications weighting.

Capability 30% weight
3 / 4 · 22.5 points
Delivery 25% weight
4 / 4 · 25 points
Use in practice 30% weight
3 / 4 · 22.5 points
Integration 15% weight
4 / 4 · 15 points

Strength: Reusable GPU simulation tools and documented access to multiple hardware and cloud backends.

Limitation: GPU simulation runs on classical hardware. MPS approximation and circuit entanglement affect accuracy and cost; simulator scale is not delivered quantum-computer capacity.

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)
Quantum chemistry algorithms and research SDKJapan

Provides building blocks for circuits and measurements, reusable algorithms and tools to evaluate their execution and resource requirements.

Open-source SDKResearch reviewed · research refresh due4 linked sources
Capability 3 / 4
Delivery 4 / 4
Use in practice 3 / 4
Integration 4 / 4

Limitation: The cited chemistry result combines quantum sampling with substantial classical methods. Agreement with references is not an end-to-end quantum speedup.

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?

This score reflects documented maturity using the software & applications weighting.

Capability 30% weight
3 / 4 · 22.5 points
Delivery 25% weight
4 / 4 · 25 points
Use in practice 30% weight
3 / 4 · 22.5 points
Integration 15% weight
4 / 4 · 15 points

Strength: Modular algorithm tools with accessible documentation and an externally reported chemistry workflow.

Limitation: The cited chemistry result combines quantum sampling with substantial classical methods. Agreement with references is not an end-to-end quantum speedup.

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 →
Rank5
Quantum control, error suppression and performance softwareAustralia / United States

Fire Opal automatically optimizes how circuits run on quantum processors to reduce noise. Its performance-management workflow targets execution quality and supports familiar sampling and observable-estimation interfaces.

Explore Fire Opal accessResearch reviewed · research refresh due5 linked sources
Capability 3 / 4
Delivery 3 / 4
Use in practice 3 / 4
Integration 4 / 4

Limitation: Performance improvements depend on circuit, hardware and baseline; an up-to multiplier is not a universal gain or proof of quantum advantage.

Full company research →
78.8/ 100
Primarily organization-sourced

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

5 assessment sourcesAssessment reviewed Assessment refresh due
Why this position?

This score reflects documented maturity using the software & applications weighting.

Capability 30% weight
3 / 4 · 22.5 points
Delivery 25% weight
3 / 4 · 18.75 points
Use in practice 30% weight
3 / 4 · 22.5 points
Integration 15% weight
4 / 4 · 15 points

Strength: Measured algorithm benchmarks and concrete distribution through established hardware platforms.

Limitation: Performance improvements depend on circuit, hardware and baseline; an up-to multiplier is not a universal gain or proof of quantum 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 →
Rank6
Quantum development environments and cross-provider executionUnited States

Brings development environments, circuit conversion and provider job controls into a common workspace.

Cloud Lab and installable SDKResearch reviewed · research refresh due4 linked sources
Capability 3 / 4
Delivery 4 / 4
Use in practice 2 / 4
Integration 4 / 4

Limitation: The reviewed hardware study includes a qBraid coauthor. It supports a specific application demonstration, without independently establishing broad production outcomes.

Full company research →
77.5/ 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?

This score reflects documented maturity using the software & applications weighting.

Capability 30% weight
3 / 4 · 22.5 points
Delivery 25% weight
4 / 4 · 25 points
Use in practice 30% weight
2 / 4 · 15 points
Integration 15% weight
4 / 4 · 15 points

Strength: Documented job-lifecycle tooling and preconfigured access to several quantum software environments.

Limitation: The reviewed hardware study includes a qBraid coauthor. It supports a specific application demonstration, without independently establishing broad production 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 →
Rank7
Quantum-inspired cargo optimizationUruguay

Generates cargo selection and loading alternatives through application APIs.

SaaS API and bounded demoResearch reviewed · research refresh due3 linked sources
Capability 3 / 4
Delivery 3 / 4
Use in practice 3 / 4
Integration 3 / 4

Limitation: The principal operating evidence is from 2023. PoC improvements are hypothetical alternative loads, and no quantum-hardware speed advantage is established.

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 due
Why this position?

This score reflects documented maturity using the software & applications weighting.

Capability 30% weight
3 / 4 · 22.5 points
Delivery 25% weight
3 / 4 · 18.75 points
Use in practice 30% weight
3 / 4 · 22.5 points
Integration 15% weight
3 / 4 · 11.25 points

Strength: A named customer describes a completed trial using historical flight data.

Limitation: The principal operating evidence is from 2023. PoC improvements are hypothetical alternative loads, and no quantum-hardware speed advantage is established.

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(tie)
MATLAB quantum circuit developmentUnited States

Lets MATLAB users build quantum circuits and integrate them into hybrid experiments.

Downloadable MATLAB add-onResearch reviewed · research refresh due3 linked sources
Capability 2 / 4
Delivery 4 / 4
Use in practice 2 / 4
Integration 4 / 4

Limitation: Examples do not demonstrate commercial advantage or widespread external adoption. Remote backends and some examples require additional products or accounts.

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.

3 assessment sourcesAssessment reviewed Assessment refresh due
Why this position?

This score reflects documented maturity using the software & applications weighting.

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

Strength: Maintained API documentation and worked examples connect classical numerical code to quantum workflows.

Limitation: Examples do not demonstrate commercial advantage or widespread external adoption. Remote backends and some examples require additional products or accounts.

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(tie)
Quantum-device computer-aided designCanada

Connects geometry and electrostatics to quantum states and device dynamics.

Commercial or trial licenseResearch reviewed · research refresh due4 linked sources
Capability 2 / 4
Delivery 4 / 4
Use in practice 2 / 4
Integration 4 / 4

Limitation: Simulation accuracy depends on model assumptions, material parameters and validation. A tutorial is not evidence of fabricated-device performance or production benefit.

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.

4 assessment sourcesAssessment reviewed Assessment refresh due
Why this position?

This score reflects documented maturity using the software & applications weighting.

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

Strength: Detailed solver, installation and device-workflow documentation.

Limitation: Simulation accuracy depends on model assumptions, material parameters and validation. A tutorial is not evidence of fabricated-device performance or production benefit.

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(tie)
Tensor-network quantum circuit emulationNetherlands

Calculates samples and observables for quantum circuits with adjustable tensor-network compression.

Token-based emulator serviceResearch reviewed · research refresh due3 linked sources
Capability 2 / 4
Delivery 4 / 4
Use in practice 2 / 4
Integration 3 / 4

Limitation: Matrix-product-state cost grows with entanglement; truncated simulations trade accuracy for resources. The CUDA-Q backend does not expose every native feature.

Full company research →
66.3/ 100
Primarily organization-sourced

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

3 assessment sourcesAssessment reviewed Assessment refresh due
Why this position?

This score reflects documented maturity using the software & applications weighting.

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

Strength: Explicit controls for approximation and documented access from established quantum SDKs.

Limitation: Matrix-product-state cost grows with entanglement; truncated simulations trade accuracy for resources. The CUDA-Q backend does not expose every native feature.

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(tie)
Symbolic and numerical quantum programmingUnited States

Combines analytical manipulation, classical simulation and quantum-provider interfaces.

Installable quantum packageResearch reviewed · research refresh due2 linked sources
Capability 2 / 4
Delivery 4 / 4
Use in practice 2 / 4
Integration 3 / 4

Limitation: Worked examples are not evidence of production quantum advantage. Remote execution requires compatible provider access and setup.

Full company research →
66.3/ 100
Primarily organization-sourced

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

2 assessment sourcesAssessment reviewed Assessment refresh due
Why this position?

This score reflects documented maturity using the software & applications weighting.

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

Strength: A versioned quantum package within an established mathematical programming environment.

Limitation: Worked examples are not evidence of production quantum advantage. Remote execution requires compatible provider access and setup.

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
Quantum programming and optimization toolingJapan

Connects quantum algorithm development with established circuit SDKs and hybrid optimization tools.

Open-source installationResearch reviewed · research refresh due4 linked sources
Capability 1 / 4
Delivery 4 / 4
Use in practice 2 / 4
Integration 4 / 4

Limitation: Public benchmark participation is not a performance result by itself. Source-branch APIs may change, and application advantage is not established by these sources.

Full company research →
62.5/ 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?

This score reflects documented maturity using the software & applications weighting.

Capability 30% weight
1 / 4 · 7.5 points
Delivery 25% weight
4 / 4 · 25 points
Use in practice 30% weight
2 / 4 · 15 points
Integration 15% weight
4 / 4 · 15 points

Strength: Accessible source, documented execution and a reusable multi-backend development stack.

Limitation: Public benchmark participation is not a performance result by itself. Source-branch APIs may change, and application advantage is not established by these sources.

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 →

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.