Already Invested in Quantum Computing? A Survival Guide for Existing Investors

In 2025, quantum computing is no longer a far-off concept confined to science fiction. Many investors have already recognized the potential of this revolutionary technology and decided to invest in related U.S. stocks.

You are likely one of them, reading this now. Alongside your excitement about the new era that quantum computers will usher in, you may also be increasingly concerned about how to review and manage your current investment portfolio, given the high volatility and uncertainty that come with this emerging technology.

Many observers see 2025 as a critical inflection point in the maturity of quantum computing technology. The field is moving beyond the early research phase into tangible technological progress, and competition among companies is becoming as fierce as market expectations are high. As tech giants like Google, Microsoft, and IBM fully enter the race, the overall market landscape is changing more dynamically than ever.

This guide is designed specifically for existing quantum computing stock investors standing at this turning point. Rather than simply searching for “quantum computing stocks” and scooping up whatever appears, our goal is to help you coolly diagnose your portfolio at this moment in time and share the in-depth analysis and concrete strategies you need to navigate the coming market shifts wisely. You may already be asking yourself...

These fundamental questions are probably circling in your mind. From here, we will work through clear answers to them together.

If you are already invested in quantum computing stocks, you are likely well aware of the technology’s disruptive potential. But because the pace of progress is so fast and competition so intense, it is crucial to regularly check what technological foundation the companies you own are actually built on, and what that technology means in the marketplace. Rather than diving into complex theory, we will briefly walk through the key technological trends that every investor should know as of 2025.

The astonishing computational power of quantum computers starts with a special unit of information called the qubit. While a classical computer bit can take on only one value, 0 or 1, a qubit can exist in a state of 0 and 1 at the same time thanks to the quantum mechanical principle of superposition. This allows a single qubit to represent and process far more information.

On top of this comes another remarkable phenomenon called entanglement, where multiple qubits become linked and behave like a single system, performing complex calculations in parallel. This combination of superposition and entanglement is the key to how quantum computers can deliver computational power that surpasses the limits of classical machines.

As of 2025, multiple qubit technologies for building quantum computers are competing like runners in a marathon. It is still uncertain which approach will ultimately win out, and each comes with its own strengths and technical hurdles. For investors, understanding the main characteristics and current status of each technology is essential.

Superconducting qubits are currently the most heavily researched and invested in, led by big tech companies like Google and IBM. This approach offers relatively fast computation speeds and the advantage of leveraging existing semiconductor manufacturing processes. However, it requires operating at ultra-low temperatures close to absolute zero, making systems complex and costly to run, and it is highly sensitive to external noise, which makes error rates a major challenge to overcome.

Trapped-ion qubits are widely regarded as having exceptionally high qubit quality—in other words, precision and stability of the stored information. Companies like IonQ and Quantinuum (a Honeywell subsidiary) are leading this space, emphasizing their long coherence times, or how long quantum information can be preserved. That said, relatively slow computation speeds and the difficulty of precisely controlling large numbers of ions as systems scale up are key obstacles that still need to be addressed.

Photonic qubits use photons, the particles of light, and are drawing attention because they could potentially operate at room temperature without special cooling equipment. They offer fast information transmission and the possibility of using existing fiber-optic infrastructure. However, inducing interactions between photons to implement quantum operations is extremely difficult, and the risk of errors from photon loss is high, leaving many technical challenges unresolved. PsiQuantum and Xanadu are among the key developers in this field.

Rapidly emerging neutral-atom qubits have recently gained attention for their strengths in scalability and qubit quality. This approach uses lasers to precisely arrange and control neutral atoms, and has already demonstrated arrays of thousands of qubits, with relatively strong resilience to external noise. Companies such as QuEra and Pasqal are leading players, while the main challenges now lie in further refining the control and measurement of interactions among large numbers of atoms.

In addition, silicon spin qubits, championed by Intel, are attractive because they can leverage existing semiconductor processes, while topological qubits, pursued by Microsoft, theoretically aim for extreme stability. Both approaches, however, are still in the early research stage and appear to be some distance away from commercialization.

No matter how powerful a quantum computer’s computational potential may be, it is useless if the results are not accurate. Unfortunately, the qubit, the basic unit of quantum computing, is extremely sensitive and prone to errors even from minor environmental disturbances. This is where the importance of Quantum Error Correction (QEC) comes to the fore. From an investor’s perspective, QEC is the key technology that determines whether a quantum computer can move beyond being a curious lab device and become a “useful machine” that reliably produces trustworthy results.

In most current quantum computing architectures, QEC is considered one of the biggest technical hurdles. Researchers are actively trying to weave together multiple unstable physical qubits like a mesh to create a single, more stable “logical qubit” and thereby reduce errors. However, at this stage, implementing just one logical qubit still requires far too many physical qubits (a “high overhead”), and in many cases the benefits fall short of expectations. While there have been some notable advances—such as work by Google, Microsoft, and the Quantinuum collaboration—the slow progress of QEC remains one of the main factors delaying the commercialization timeline for practical quantum computers. For investors, how much meaningful progress a company is making in QEC is therefore a critical criterion in assessing its investment value.

Over the past few years, many quantum-computing companies have competed to showcase their technical prowess by announcing how many physical qubits they have packed onto their chips. But if you already hold quantum-computing stocks in your portfolio, it is time to look beyond this simple qubit-number contest and focus on how much genuinely useful computation those quantum computers can actually perform. This is the idea behind “quantum utility” or “quantum advantage.”

No matter how many qubits a system has, its investment value will inevitably suffer if issues such as error rates or qubit connectivity prevent it from solving truly complex problems. Investors should therefore look past the flashy qubit counts in company presentations and instead scrutinize whether the quantum computers they are building can solve meaningful real-world problems faster and more efficiently than classical computers, or tackle entirely new classes of problems that were previously intractable. In many promising application areas, highly error-resilient, fault-tolerant quantum computers will likely still be required. Even so, there is already active work using today’s noisy intermediate-scale quantum (NISQ) devices to generate meaningful results in specialized domains such as molecular simulations for drug discovery or financial market modeling. Ultimately, the long-term success of your investment will hinge on how convincingly a company can demonstrate real “quantum utility” and translate that into concrete commercial value.

The transformative potential of quantum computing is undeniable, but not every company involved will share equally in the spoils of this revolution. For investors who already hold specific quantum-computing names in their portfolios, it is more important than ever to ask whether those companies are building a durable competitive edge—a robust economic moat—amid fierce technological competition and unforgiving market scrutiny. In this section, as of 2025, we take a close look at the current status of major U.S.-listed quantum-computing firms and, from an investor’s perspective, analyze in depth the competitive dynamics and hidden risk factors surrounding them.

As of 2025, a handful of pure-play quantum-computing companies—businesses devoted almost exclusively to developing quantum-computing technology—are listed on U.S. exchanges and attracting significant investor attention. Each is pursuing the daunting challenge of commercializing quantum computers with its own technological approach and business strategy, combining substantial growth potential with equally substantial investment risk.

Given that most of these companies are still pouring large sums into R&D rather than generating meaningful profits, they are effectively on a proving ground, constantly having to justify their valuations against lofty market expectations and the reality of their actual progress.

1. IonQ (IONQ): Leading the Ion-Trap Race, Betting on Networking for the Future
IonQ is one of the most prominent players in the quantum-computing race, leveraging its proprietary trapped-ion technology. The trapped-ion approach is known for strong qubit stability and long coherence times—the period during which quantum information is preserved without error—enabling highly precise computations. The company has recently been transitioning from ytterbium to barium ion–based systems to drive performance gains, and it promotes its progress using its own performance metric, “#AQ (Algorithmic Qubits).” Following its current flagship system, IonQ Forte (#AQ36), the company plans to launch the barium-based “Tempo” system in 2025, signaling steady execution of its technology roadmap.
What investors should pay particular attention to in IonQ’s recent moves is its bold investment and long-term vision in quantum networking. The company has acquired a string of related technology firms—including Swiss quantum-cryptography specialist ID Quantique, as well as Lightsynq and Capella—building a formidable portfolio of more than 950 patents. This points to a long-term strategy of going beyond the limits of a single quantum computer by interconnecting multiple quantum systems—much like the internet—to achieve far greater computing power and ultimately enable secure quantum communications. In practice, IonQ has signed a contract to build the first U.S. quantum-computing and networking hub in Chattanooga, Tennessee, and is expanding market access by offering its systems through Amazon’s cloud service, Amazon Braket.

Financially, IonQ generated $7.6 million in revenue in the first quarter of 2025 and has guided for full-year revenue of $75 million to $95 million. As the company is still in an investment phase, it recorded a net loss of $32.3 million in the same quarter and held approximately $697.1 million in cash as of the end of March 2025.

From an investor’s standpoint, IonQ’s success hinges on whether it can fully exploit the inherent strengths of trapped-ion technology to deliver sustained performance improvements, and whether its ambitious quantum-networking strategy can translate into a tangible competitive edge in the marketplace. In particular, the successful implementation of photonic interconnects—the core technology for linking multiple trapped-ion modules—will be a critical factor shaping the company’s future growth trajectory.

2. D-Wave Quantum (QBTS): A Singular Focus on Quantum Annealing, with Proof of Practical Value Still Key
D-Wave Quantum has chosen a distinct path from many of its peers that are pursuing general-purpose gate-model quantum computers. Instead, it focuses on quantum annealing, a technology specialized in solving certain classes of complex optimization problems. Quantum annealing is known for its ability to search through vast solution spaces to find optimal answers—akin to locating the lowest valley in a rugged landscape—which makes it highly relevant for tackling hard problems in logistics, finance, drug discovery, and more. The company’s current flagship system, “Advantage,” features more than 5,000 qubits, while the next-generation “Advantage2” is expected to offer 4,400 qubits with significantly improved connectivity and stability.

The main reason D-Wave commands investor attention is that it has already begun to generate commercial use cases in real-world industrial settings. In the first quarter of 2025, boosted by system sales to specific customers, the company delivered record revenue of $15 million—more than five times the figure from a year earlier—and believes its current cash balance (about $304.3 million as of the end of March 2025) will be sufficient to reach profitability. Recently, D-Wave showcased its technical capabilities in the prestigious journal Science, publishing a paper claiming that its quantum annealer outperformed a classical supercomputer on a specific magnetic-material simulation problem. It has also been steadily building a track record of industrial deployments, such as Ford Otosan—the Turkish subsidiary of global automaker Ford—using D-Wave’s technology on its production lines to optimize complex scheduling in vehicle manufacturing. Another strength is the company’s robust intellectual property portfolio, with more than 750 patents worldwide in quantum annealing.

For investors, D-Wave’s long-term success depends on how uniquely and sustainably its specialized quantum-annealing technology can dominate specific problem domains. As gate-model quantum-computing technology advances rapidly, a key question is whether the “practical value” offered by annealing will remain compelling over the long run, and whether the company can expand beyond its current niche use cases into broader markets. Although D-Wave is also working on gate-model systems, investors will be watching closely to see how it maintains its leadership in annealing while cultivating new growth drivers.

3. Rigetti Computing (RGTI): An ambitious challenger in superconducting technology, seeking a breakthrough with full-stack capabilities and partnerships
Rigetti Computing is a notable company that has thrown down the gauntlet in the superconducting qubit field dominated by big tech players like Google and IBM, leveraging its own technology and full-stack capabilities to compete in the market. The company pursues an integrated approach that spans the entire quantum computing system, from qubit chip design and fabrication to control systems and software development. Its current flagship system, the 84-qubit “Ankaa-3,” has reportedly achieved a high two-qubit gate fidelity (accuracy) of 99.5%, and the firm has a technology roadmap to deliver systems with more than 100 qubits by the end of 2025 and, over the longer term, the 336-qubit “Lyra” system. Among Rigetti’s core technological strengths are its multi-chip design technology, which boosts scalability by connecting multiple qubit chips like tiles; its ABAA (Alternating-Bias Assisted Annealing) technology, which aims to reduce errors in the manufacturing process; and its use of optical signals for qubit control.

Recently, Rigetti has made meaningful progress in securing financial stability and accelerating technology development. A prime example is the strategic investment of 35 million dollars it attracted from Quanta Computer, a major Taiwanese electronics manufacturing services company, along with the establishment of a technology collaboration. Recognizing the importance of quantum error correction (QEC), Rigetti is also working with Riverlane, a specialist in this field, and is actively participating in the U.S. Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) quantum benchmarking program and a government-backed project by Innovate UK to secure practical QEC technologies. On the patent front, the company holds roughly 237 granted and pending patents, primarily focused on superconducting technology, multi-chip modules, and hybrid quantum–classical systems.

Financially, however, Rigetti has yet to establish a sustainable revenue-generating model. Its revenue in the first quarter of 2025 was 1.5 million dollars, down year-on-year, and it recorded an operating loss of 21.6 million dollars. Following the investment from Quanta Computer, its cash and investment assets stood at about 237.7 million dollars as of April 30, 2025.

From an investor’s perspective, Rigetti’s future hinges on how successfully it can execute its own technology roadmap in the fiercely competitive superconducting qubit landscape—especially on core challenges such as error correction—and whether it can translate that into tangible commercial results that convince the market. Another key point to watch is how the company balances continued R&D investment and business expansion under constrained funding, and how it positions itself in terms of both competition and collaboration with big tech firms.

4. Quantum Computing Inc. (QUBT): A diversification strategy built on photonics technology, with restoring market trust as the top priority
Quantum Computing Inc. (QUBT) is a company targeting the quantum computing market based on integrated photonics and quantum optics technologies. Its goal is to develop quantum computers and related products that can operate at room temperature, with relatively low power consumption and lower operating costs. QUBT’s main product lineup includes the “Dirac-3” machine for solving quantum optimization problems, “EmuCore,” a new computing architecture based on reservoir computing, and quantum random number generator (QRNG) chips that leverage quantum technologies.

More recently, the company has demonstrated its commitment to strengthening its hardware manufacturing capabilities by announcing the completion of a foundry facility in Tempe, Arizona, capable of producing its own quantum photonic chips based on a special material called thin-film lithium niobate (TFLN), and by securing initial orders. QUBT has also formed partnerships with organizations such as NASA (for collaboration on noise-removal technologies for LIDAR satellite data) and Sanders TDI in pharmaceutical research, as it seeks to target specific application domains. The company is reported to hold around 17 patents, including those related to quantum security and privacy-preserving computation using entangled photons.

Financially, QUBT’s revenue in the first quarter of 2025 was just 39,000 dollars, still at a very modest level, and it posted an accounting net profit mainly due to non-cash gains. Its cash balance stood at about 166.4 million dollars as of the end of March 2025 (after a private placement).

For investors, the most critical validation point is whether QUBT truly has meaningful technological differentiation in photonics, and whether its somewhat scattered business model (optimization machines, reservoir computing, foundry services, and more) can generate synergies that translate into real revenue growth and improved profitability. In particular, the company’s history of facing a class-action lawsuit over allegedly exaggerated claims about past partnerships and technological capabilities is a risk factor that must be weighed carefully in any investment decision. Regaining the market’s trust and proving the potential for sustained growth are QUBT’s top priorities.

If you are already investing in quantum computing stocks, you are likely focused on the movements of companies listed mainly on U.S. exchanges. But beneath the surface, countless private startups that have yet to show themselves to the public markets are quietly—but very rapidly—growing with cutting-edge technologies and ideas, preparing to upend the existing order. Their presence goes beyond simply adding new competitors; it forces investors to ask fundamental questions about the technological moat and long-term survivability of the listed companies they currently hold.

What deserves the most attention is that these startups often come forward with “disruptive technologies” that aim to directly break through the limitations of existing approaches. For example, fluxonium qubits that seek to improve on the weaknesses of conventional superconducting qubits (e.g., Atlantic Quantum), or entirely new approaches such as electrons on helium (e.g., EeroQ), could, if their potential is proven, rapidly neutralize the technological edge of listed companies that have poured massive investments into today’s mainstream technologies. This means that the value of certain stocks in our portfolios could change dramatically in ways we did not anticipate. Closely tracking the technological progress of these players therefore becomes an important barometer for judging whether the companies we invest in can maintain sustainable competitiveness in the future.

These promising startups also frequently become attractive M&A targets for big tech firms or well-capitalized listed quantum companies. This can provide an opportunity for the companies we invest in to leap forward by securing key technologies through acquisitions, but it can also widen the gap if competitors move first to lock in promising technologies. As a result, the moves of private rising stars offer important clues for anticipating market reshaping through M&A and for gauging shifts in the strategic positioning of stocks we hold. It is wise to monitor the trajectories of standout private companies in each domain—such as Atom Computing (neutral atom technology) and Diraq (silicon spin technology)—not just out of technical curiosity, but from the perspective of the tangible impact they may have on our portfolios.

Another key front in the quantum computing technology race is the invisible war over intellectual property (IP), especially patents. As technologies in this field move closer to commercialization, patents on core foundational technologies can grant companies powerful market dominance and defensive capabilities, while a weak patent portfolio can become an Achilles’ heel that seriously hampers future growth. If you are already investing in quantum computing-related stocks, you should therefore assess both the patent strength of your holdings and their potential IP litigation risks.

The current race to file patents in quantum computing is akin to an arms race. As of 2025, there are thousands of distinct patent families worldwide, and the number of applications filed over the past year alone has surged by about 50%, underscoring the intensity of the competition. This patent race reflects not only technological innovation but also the strategic moves of companies seeking to secure exclusive rights and set technology standards in future markets. This suggests that expensive patent lawsuits and licensing negotiations between companies may become more frequent, and that these dynamics could become a major variable with direct implications for individual firms’ profitability and share prices.

However, what investors should focus on is that the sheer number of patents a company holds is far from the whole story. In quantum computing, the breadth of basic scientific research and the rapid pace of technological change make it extremely difficult to assess the validity and real commercial value of any given patent.
What truly matters is how strongly those patents protect “core foundational technologies” that competitors cannot easily copy or design around, and how closely those technologies are tied to the company’s long-term business model. For example, IonQ’s acquisition-driven buildup of a large patent portfolio in quantum networking, and D-Wave’s IP portfolio specialized in quantum annealing technologies, both illustrate each firm’s clear strategic direction.

As the technology matures and commercial products begin to enter the market in earnest, it is highly likely that legal disputes between companies over key patents will become unavoidable. For investors, assessing how robust the patent portfolios of their quantum computing holdings are, and how well those companies are prepared for potential IP disputes, is therefore a critical task. This goes beyond a simple evaluation of technological capabilities and becomes a core indicator of a company’s long-term survivability and market power.

Behind the heated expectations surrounding quantum computing, there is always the cold shadow of a potential "Quantum Winter." Similar to what the AI field has experienced, this refers to a harsh period when the pace of technological progress fails to keep up with the market’s excessive expectations, or when commercialization is significantly delayed versus earlier projections, causing investor enthusiasm to cool rapidly and R&D funding to dry up.
As of 2025, some experts argue that concerns about the arrival of such a quantum winter are growing compared with the past.

So what should we focus on when we talk about a potential quantum winter?

First, we need to look beyond the generic explanation of “unmet expectations” and understand the specific reasons why concerns have been rising recently. For example, we should examine from multiple angles whether disappointment is mounting because progress on error correction (QEC) or scalability in certain mainstream approaches (e.g., superconducting qubits) has been slower than expected, or whether global macroeconomic uncertainty is undermining long‑term investment appetite in advanced technologies. Whereas past AI winters were driven mainly by limits in computing power and immature algorithms, in today’s quantum computing the bigger driver may be the market’s impatience over the continually delayed timeline for delivering useful outcomes despite massive upfront investment.

Second, we need to understand leading indicators that can help us detect the early signs of a quantum winter. We must be able to sense the market’s temperature a step ahead of simple share‑price declines or negative media coverage. For instance, trends such as major quantum computing companies freezing or cutting R&D budgets, key technical talent moving en masse to competitors or even to entirely different tech fields, a sharp pullback in new venture capital investments or a drastic tightening of investment terms, delays or budget cuts in large‑scale government‑led quantum computing support programs, and increasingly vague commercialization roadmaps or repeatedly postponed target timelines announced by companies can all be interpreted as potential warning signals.

Third, even if a quantum winter does materialize and overall market sentiment turns risk‑off, not all companies will suffer equally. Some will survive the downturn and prepare for the next leg of growth, or even capture new opportunities. For example, companies that rely solely on extremely capital‑intensive hardware approaches are likely to be more vulnerable than those developing relatively cost‑efficient technologies or serving a broad range of applications; companies that already generate stable cash flow from paying customers in specific industries (such as D‑Wave’s optimization solutions); companies that have secured a stable R&D environment through strong technology partnerships with big tech firms; or companies backed by ample retained earnings or robust government support that allows them to continue investing in core technologies regardless of short‑term market conditions. These players are more likely to navigate the winter successfully.

Therefore, investors currently holding quantum computing stocks should not simply fear the potential risk of a quantum winter. Instead, they should cool‑headedly analyze where the companies they own stand within this shifting market environment, and how resilient they are in responding to a downturn. When necessary, they should proactively rebalance their portfolios. This goes beyond a passive “buy‑and‑hold” mindset and is central to a flexible long‑term investment approach that actively adapts to changing market conditions.

One reason concerns about a “quantum winter” are rising more than before as of 2025 is that, beyond the slow pace of technological progress, the market’s concrete skepticism toward some companies’ performance claims is intensifying. For example, short‑selling firms have publicly challenged D‑Wave Quantum’s technological edge and level of commercialization, while other quantum computing companies have faced criticism over past instances of misleading investors. These are clear signs that the “trust capital” of the quantum computing industry as a whole is still far from firmly established.

The vast potential of quantum computing as a future technology is not reserved for startups alone. The global tech behemoths that already dominate today’s markets—the big tech names we all know—are also racing into this new arena of competition. Google, Microsoft, IBM, Amazon, Nvidia, Intel and other heavyweights are leveraging their enormous capital, world‑class research talent, and powerful synergies with existing businesses to wage an intense strategic battle for supremacy in quantum computing.

For investors holding quantum computing‑related stocks today, big tech’s entry carries major implications. These companies can sometimes act as powerful allies that drive the growth of the entire market, but at other times they can become the fiercest competitors, threatening the survival of smaller specialists with their overwhelming capital and technical capabilities. How exactly are these giants reshaping the quantum computing ecosystem, and amid their complex strategies, what opportunities and risks should existing investors be watching for?

Each big tech company is pioneering the new frontier of quantum computing in its own way, based on its unique strengths and long‑term vision. This is more than a simple difference in technological preference. It reflects a complex interplay of each firm’s core business profile, accumulated technical capabilities, and long‑term strategic judgment about future markets.

1. Why are big tech companies pouring massive investment into quantum computing?

The fundamental reason big tech companies are committing astronomical budgets and top‑tier talent to quantum computing R&D is the technology’s enormous disruptive power and potential as a “game changer” for future industries.
In theory, quantum computers can solve complex problems in hours or minutes that would take classical computers tens of thousands or even millions of years. This implies the possibility of revolutionary change across nearly every sector: new drug and materials discovery, sophisticated financial risk modeling, dramatic improvements in AI performance, and the ability to break today’s cryptographic systems, to name just a few.

This potential can directly reinforce big tech’s current core businesses and secure future growth engines. For cloud providers such as Amazon (AWS), Microsoft (Azure), and Google (Google Cloud), quantum computing could become a new standard and key competitive edge in the cloud market of the future.

By delivering quantum computing power as a subscription service through their vast cloud infrastructures, these firms can create new high‑margin revenue streams and further cement their existing customer bases. For AI leaders like Google and Nvidia, quantum computing could become a powerful weapon that boosts AI training speed and problem‑solving capabilities to levels far beyond what is possible today. For Intel, with its strengths in semiconductor design and manufacturing, it represents a prime opportunity to secure technological leadership in the next‑generation computing hardware market. IBM, which has long provided high‑performance computing solutions to enterprise clients, also views quantum computing as a natural extension of its technology portfolio.

Ultimately, for big tech companies, investment in quantum computing is not just about acquiring a new technology. It should be understood as a long‑term, strategic move to gain decisive advantage in the future race for technological supremacy, expand their core business ecosystems, and create entirely new markets.

2. Current status of each big tech company and key points for investors

Google is one of the leading companies in quantum computer development, focusing on superconducting qubits, one of the most widely studied approaches today. Back in 2019, it drew global attention when it announced that its 53‑qubit “Sycamore” processor had achieved “quantum supremacy,” outperforming existing supercomputers on a specific computational task.

But Google is not content with that milestone and is instead pouring its efforts into securing error‑correction technology, the core challenge that must be solved for quantum computers to gain real‑world problem‑solving capabilities. Its recently unveiled 105‑qubit “Willow” chip is reported to have dramatically improved qubit stability (coherence time) and significantly reduced error rates compared with previous generations. This could become an important milestone toward Google’s ultimate goal of implementing long‑lived “logical qubits” and building large‑scale, error‑corrected quantum computers.

Google is optimistic that commercially viable applications solvable only by quantum computers will emerge within the next five years, and it is trying to accelerate that timeline by leveraging synergies with its powerful AI research capabilities.

From an investor’s perspective, the key question for Google is how quickly it can tackle the most fundamental technical challenge of error correction. Investors should closely watch how Google overcomes the material and manufacturing constraints of superconducting qubits and the difficulty of building large‑scale systems, and whether its technical advances can combine with its own software ecosystem—such as Cirq and TensorFlow Quantum—to deliver real “quantum utility.”

In quantum computing, Microsoft is pursuing a path that is clearly distinct from other big tech players—highly ambitious and technically demanding at the same time. It has long concentrated massive resources on developing an innovative qubit technology known as the topological qubit.

In theory, this technology is expected to enable quantum computers that are inherently stable, with extremely low error rates, because information is barely damaged by small external disturbances (noise). If successful, it has the potential to be a true game changer, as it could allow the construction of powerful quantum computers without complex error‑correction procedures. In February 2025, Microsoft announced technical progress by unveiling “Majorana 1,” the world’s first quantum processing unit (QPU) powered by a topological core, built on its proprietary technology for controlling “Majorana quasiparticles,” a key building block of topological qubits. The chip is designed to integrate up to one million qubits on a single die, and Microsoft claims it will be able to build powerful quantum computers with far fewer qubits than competing approaches.

Alongside this bold bet on in‑house hardware, Microsoft is also going all‑in on building a comprehensive quantum‑computing ecosystem through its powerful cloud platform, Azure Quantum. Azure Quantum provides cloud‑based access to quantum hardware from partners using a variety of technologies—such as IonQ, Quantinuum, and Atom Computing—as well as high‑performance simulators. It also offers a rich set of development tools, including its own quantum programming language Q# (Q Sharp) and SDK, plus the Azure Quantum Resource Estimator, which predicts the resource requirements for running quantum algorithms.

More recently, Microsoft integrated the GPT‑4‑based AI assistant Copilot into Azure Quantum Elements, helping developers write and run quantum programs more easily. It is also actively working on market education and customer acquisition through its “Quantum‑Ready” program, which helps enterprises prepare in advance for the adoption of future quantum technologies.

From an investor’s standpoint, Microsoft’s strategy can be seen as a textbook case of “high risk, high return.” Topological qubit technology has enormous potential, but its technical feasibility is also more uncertain than almost any other approach. Past controversies over the reliability of related research have only heightened that uncertainty. Investors therefore need to watch very carefully how rigorously the actual performance and scalability of the “Majorana 1” chip are validated by academia and the market. If this technological gamble pays off, Microsoft could secure a commanding competitive edge in the future computing market through Azure Quantum—but investors should recognize that the path will likely be a rough one.

On the other hand, the growth of the Azure Quantum platform itself and the deepening of collaborations with a wide range of partners can provide Microsoft with a stable foundation for market participation, regardless of whether topological qubits ultimately succeed.

IBM boasts the longest research history in quantum computing and is a flagship company that has been executing a steady, systematic roadmap based on superconducting qubit technology. Rather than trying to leap directly to a perfect, general‑purpose quantum computer, IBM is pursuing a highly realistic vision called quantum‑centric supercomputing, which aims to generate tangible value starting from today’s NISQ era (noisy intermediate‑scale quantum computers). This is a hybrid approach that tightly integrates quantum processing units (QPUs) with classical high‑performance computing (HPC) resources—CPUs and GPUs—so that each can play to its strengths.

The 133‑qubit “Heron” processor, introduced at the end of 2023, significantly improved error rates over the previous generation, demonstrating IBM’s technical capabilities. Building on that, in November 2024 IBM announced “Heron R2,” a second‑generation 156‑qubit Heron processor that dramatically boosted computational speed (as measured by CLOPS), slashing the time required to solve complex problems. In 2025, IBM aims to launch “Nighthawk,” a 120‑qubit modular processor designed for more complex circuit execution, and to demonstrate its first quantum‑centric supercomputer.

IBM’s long‑term roadmap includes ambitious plans for “IBM Quantum Starling,” capable of executing 100 million gates by 2029, and for “Blue Jay,” a 100,000‑qubit‑class system targeted for 2033 and beyond. IBM has also recently moved up its forecast, saying it could achieve quantum advantage as early as 2026. On the software side, it leads a powerful developer ecosystem through Qiskit SDK, the world’s most widely used open‑source quantum‑computing framework, and provides cloud access to its quantum systems via the IBM Quantum Network, which includes around 300 companies and academic institutions worldwide. IBM’s announcement of a large‑scale investment plan—over $30 billion in the United States for quantum computers and mainframes, among other areas—underscores that it sees this field as a core growth engine for the future.

From an investor’s perspective, IBM’s strengths lie in its long history of accumulated expertise, its vast portfolio of more than 2,500 patents, and the vibrant developer ecosystem built around Qiskit. Its pragmatic roadmap of “quantum‑centric supercomputing” also appears favorable for generating results in the near term. However, a key question going forward is how effectively IBM can overcome the inherent limitations of superconducting qubit technology—namely error rates and coherence times—and whether it can clearly demonstrate market‑recognized quantum advantage amid rapid competition.

Amazon Web Services (AWS), the world’s largest cloud‑service provider, is leveraging its formidable cloud‑platform advantage in the quantum‑computing space as well. Through Amazon Braket, a fully managed quantum‑computing service, AWS effectively operates a “quantum‑computing technology marketplace” that offers access to quantum hardware using a variety of approaches—from companies such as IonQ and Rigetti—as well as high‑performance simulators. This open strategy is designed to expand the user base and capture the market by giving users broad choice without tying them to the success or failure of any single hardware technology.

At the same time, AWS is investing heavily in its own quantum‑hardware development, with a particular focus on dramatically improving the efficiency of quantum error correction. In February 2025, AWS unveiled “Ocelot,” its first in‑house quantum‑computing chip built on a proprietary technology called cat qubits. Cat qubits are designed to suppress certain types of errors (bit‑flip errors) at the physical level, and AWS says they can reduce the resources required for overall quantum error correction by up to 90% compared with conventional approaches. The Ocelot chip consists of five data qubits (cat qubits) plus additional qubits for error detection and stabilization, for a total of 14 key elements, and AWS expects this to accelerate the timeline for practical quantum computers by as much as five years.

AWS’s long-term goal is to build an error-free quantum computer based on the Ocelot architecture, dramatically reducing the resources and costs required for error correction in the process and thereby improving the economics of hardware construction.

From an investor’s perspective, AWS’s strategy is particularly compelling in that it simultaneously pursues the openness of its cloud platform and the innovation of in-house hardware development. If cat qubit technology proves to deliver the exceptional error-correction efficiency and scalability it claims, AWS has the potential to become a powerful game changer that can disrupt the competitive landscape by offering more affordable, accessible, and high-performance quantum computing services through Amazon Braket. That said, Ocelot is still in an early prototype stage, and the market will need to rigorously test whether the superior performance of cat qubits can be maintained in large-scale systems.

Nvidia, the dominant force in the AI semiconductor market, has chosen not to compete by directly developing quantum processing units (QPUs). Instead, it is strategically focused on leveraging its core strengths—GPUs and high-performance computing (HPC) technologies—to accelerate quantum computing R&D overall, and in particular to support the construction of hybrid quantum–classical systems that effectively integrate quantum processors (QPUs) with conventional processors (CPUs and GPUs).

Nvidia’s goal is to augment its AI supercomputing technology with quantum computing to help tackle some of humanity’s toughest problems, such as drug discovery, materials science, and financial modeling. To that end, in March 2025 Nvidia drew attention by announcing plans to establish the NVIDIA Accelerated Quantum Research Center (NVAQC) in Boston. This research center will combine state-of-the-art quantum hardware with Nvidia’s AI supercomputers to support core technologies needed to solve qubit noise issues and to turn experimental quantum processors into practical devices. In particular, Nvidia plans to use systems such as its latest GB200 NVL72 rack-scale platform to enable complex quantum system simulations and real-time deployment of quantum hardware control algorithms.

In addition, the integrated system NVIDIA DGX Quantum, developed in collaboration with Quantum Machines, combines Nvidia’s Grace Hopper Superchip with Quantum Machines’ OPX control system, reducing communication latency between QPUs and GPUs to below a microsecond and thereby making real-time GPU-accelerated quantum error correction, calibration, and control a reality. On the software side, Nvidia offers the open quantum development platform NVIDIA CUDA-Q™ (formerly QODA), which allows developers to use GPU, CPU, and QPU resources in an integrated way within a single program, regardless of which QPU technology is employed. CUDA-Q is being used to accelerate Google’s QPU development, among others, broadening compatibility with various QPU manufacturers and expanding the ecosystem.

Furthermore, Nvidia’s high-performance library suite for accelerating quantum computing simulations, the NVIDIA cuQuantum SDK, supports major quantum programming frameworks such as Cirq and Qiskit, significantly boosting R&D productivity.

From an investor’s standpoint, Nvidia’s strategy can be seen as a highly astute “platform and core-technology enabler” approach that is not directly dependent on the success or failure of any specific QPU technology, but instead aims to benefit broadly as the overall quantum computing market grows. Just as CPUs or operating systems were critical in the PC era, Nvidia is signaling its confidence that its GPU acceleration technologies and software platforms will play a central role in the coming age of quantum computing. However, Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang’s remark that it may take 15 to 30 years for a “highly useful quantum computer” to become a reality is an important reminder for investors that this field should be approached with a very long-term perspective rather than short-term expectations.

Intel, a traditional powerhouse in the global semiconductor market, has chosen to directly apply its core competitive advantage—its formidable semiconductor design and manufacturing (foundry) capabilities—to quantum computing. The technology Intel is focusing on is silicon spin qubits.

The most notable feature and potential strength of this technology is that quantum qubits can be fabricated using the same 300 mm CMOS semiconductor manufacturing process used to produce the computer chips found in most of today’s electronic devices. If this approach is successfully commercialized, it could deliver far superior scalability, productivity, and cost efficiency compared with other qubit technologies, opening the door to a “mass production” era for quantum computers with enormous disruptive potential. Intel has already developed Tunnel Falls, a silicon spin qubit chip integrating 12 qubits, and is providing it to the global research community. In parallel, it is increasing the technological maturity of its platform by developing the Horse Ridge series of integrated control chips for precise qubit control in cryogenic environments.

More recently, Intel has reported steady technical progress, including research results that significantly improve the uniformity and fidelity of silicon spin qubits on 300 mm wafers. On the software side, Intel is also working to build a developer ecosystem by offering the Intel Quantum SDK, which supports the full quantum computing stack from simulation onward. Rather than chasing short-term qubit-count milestones, Intel’s quantum computing roadmap is focused on achieving “quantum practicality”—that is, moving beyond lab-scale research to deliver commercial quantum systems capable of solving real-world problems. Intel’s director of quantum hardware has stated that machines with error-free qubit counts in the millions and truly commercial applications are still 10 to 15 years away, underscoring a cautious view of the technology’s maturity.

Intel has already filed more than 500 patents related to silicon-based quantum computing, steadily laying the groundwork to secure long-term technological leadership in this field.

From an investor’s perspective, Intel’s strategy can be interpreted as a measured, long-term investment aimed at maximizing its core strength in semiconductor manufacturing rather than pursuing quick wins. It is true that silicon spin qubit technology is still at a relatively early stage compared with other mainstream approaches and faces many technical challenges, which is a clear risk. However, if Intel can successfully overcome these hurdles and establish a large-scale mass production system, it could fundamentally reshape the future quantum hardware market. This reflects a belief that, much like today’s semiconductor industry, the ultimate contest will be over who can build more, better, and cheaper—and that Intel can once again emerge victorious in that race.

As we have seen, major big tech companies are exploring the new frontier of quantum computing in very different ways.

Some companies pursue a full-stack development strategy that spans everything from qubit R&D and hardware fabrication to software and cloud services. Others focus their investments on specific technological domains that align with their core capabilities, or step back from the hardware race to play the role of platform provider and ecosystem enabler.

These strategic differences are not accidental. They are the inevitable result of a complex interplay among each company’s core business characteristics, the unique technical capabilities accumulated over decades, and their long-term vision for the future market.

For example, Google has a clear goal of combining its overwhelming leadership in AI and machine learning with quantum computing to drive innovation in areas where AI is deeply embedded, such as drug discovery, materials science, and financial modeling. Microsoft, building on its powerful Azure cloud platform, is signaling its ambition to capture the future enterprise market through potentially game-changing topological qubit technology. IBM, leveraging its long history in enterprise solutions and HPC, is taking a pragmatic approach with “quantum-centric supercomputing” to deliver incremental value to corporate clients. Amazon (AWS), as the world’s largest cloud provider, is pursuing a dual strategy: offering access to diverse quantum hardware through Amazon Braket while simultaneously seeking efficiency gains with proprietary error-correction technologies such as the Ocelot chip. Nvidia is extending its dominance in GPUs and HPC into quantum simulation and hybrid-system support, solidifying its position as a platform provider that is not tied to any particular QPU technology. Finally, Intel aims to open the era of mass-produced silicon spin qubits by harnessing its core strength in semiconductor manufacturing.

Ultimately, these big tech companies are not merely developing a new technology. They are pursuing clear strategic objectives: to capture the vast opportunity of quantum computing in the ways they are best equipped to execute, and in doing so, to reinforce their existing businesses or create entirely new engines of growth.

The fact that Big Tech companies such as Google, Microsoft, and IBM are pouring massive amounts of capital and talent into the quantum computing market both demonstrates the market’s enormous growth potential and raises complex questions for shareholders invested in small and mid-sized quantum-computing specialists. Will the entry of these giants be a blessing or a curse for the companies you own? The answer is mixed, but as an investor you need a clear understanding of what it means.

The first thing to consider is the opportunity from market expansion and technology validation.

Active market participation and investment by Big Tech enhance overall confidence in the potential of quantum computing and amplify interest in related technologies and applications. This clearly creates a favorable environment for smaller specialists to secure early customers or attract additional funding.

In addition, because it is difficult even for Big Tech to develop every layer of the technology stack on its own, opportunities can open up for technology partnerships or joint development with smaller firms that have unrivaled capabilities in specific components, specialized algorithms, or industry-specific software modules. As in Microsoft’s collaborations with Atom Computing and Quantinuum, such partnerships can become a crucial springboard for smaller companies to leverage Big Tech’s financial resources and market access.

However, there are also clear risk factors.

The biggest concern is the intensification of direct competition.

Armed with overwhelming capital, world-class research talent, and powerful brands, Big Tech may seek to rapidly dominate the entire market. In particular, Big Tech players pursuing a full-stack strategy—offering everything from hardware and software to cloud services—can trigger direct competition with smaller specialists across nearly every business area. For smaller firms that are disadvantaged in capital, R&D scale, and marketing, this can become an existential threat. Another serious risk is the potential loss of key talent. Skilled experts in quantum computing are extremely scarce worldwide, and if Big Tech absorbs them by offering higher pay and superior research environments, smaller specialists may lose the engine of their technology development and fall behind in the race.

Finally, if a company becomes part of a platform or ecosystem led by Big Tech, there may be short-term benefits, but over the long run you must also consider the risk of becoming dependent on Big Tech for its technology roadmap and overall business direction.

Therefore, if you are a shareholder in a small or mid-sized quantum-computing specialist, you should continuously assess how the company positions itself vis-à-vis Big Tech—does it avoid head-on competition, pursue win–win collaboration, or play a complementary role? Above all, you need to check how deep and robust a proprietary, hard-to-replicate technological moat it is building to survive within Big Tech’s vast sphere of influence. This is the key observation point that can improve your odds of success in the uncertain quantum computing market.

Given the enormous uncertainty in the market, investing solely on the basis of quantum computing’s technological potential is risky. If you already hold related stocks, now is precisely the time to take a hard, sober look at yourself as an investor and craft a concrete strategy for how to manage your current portfolio. This section lays out key criteria and strategies to help you evaluate your holdings objectively and make rational decisions.

There can be a gap between the rosy roadmaps companies announce and their actual technological progress. Investors therefore must critically examine corporate claims and work to uncover the reality behind hyped-up narratives. Rather than being dazzled by announcements of ever-larger qubit counts or labels like “world’s first,” you should ask whether the results have been vetted by peer scientists (for example, publication in reputable journals), what objective benchmarks from third-party institutions show, and whether the stated technical milestones are concrete and realistically achievable.

In other words, the greater the future growth potential of a new technology field like quantum computing, the more carefully investors must scrutinize a company’s real technological capabilities and business model. As with the “reckless mistakes” at the end of 2024, investments that merely chase the word “quantum” or ride a hot market mood can lead to substantial losses.

The true competitiveness of a quantum computing company is not captured by the raw number of physical qubits it announces. As an investor, you should continuously track a range of qualitative and quantitative key performance indicators (KPIs) behind those numbers to gauge the company’s real growth and technological progress.

Key indicators to focus on include “algorithmic qubits (#AQ)” (a metric used by IonQ, referring to the number of qubits that are actually usable for computation);
“quantum volume (QV)” (developed by IBM and widely used by Quantinuum, which holistically evaluates qubit quality, connectivity, and more);
and “gate fidelity,” which measures the accuracy of quantum operations.

Another key factor is how long qubits can stably maintain their quantum state—known as coherence time—the effectiveness of error-correction techniques, and concrete use cases or benchmark results showing that the technology has solved problems with real commercial value.
Finally, since most companies are still loss-making, you should not forget that core financial metrics directly tied to a firm’s survival include its cash balance relative to its burn rate and its ability to secure additional funding on a stable basis.

Quantum computing is a high-risk, high-reward market where investment performance can diverge sharply depending on whether individual companies succeed technologically. Rather than concentrating all your capital in a single name, it can be wiser to manage risk by diversifying across a range of companies and technologies. One way to achieve this diversification is through quantum-computing–related exchange-traded funds (ETFs), such as the Defiance Quantum ETF (QTUM).

In an early-stage market where it is difficult to predict which company will ultimately emerge as the winner, investing in the growth potential of the entire sector can be an effective approach.

ETFs, however, also have drawbacks. Alongside promising companies, they may include relatively weak ones; they charge management fees; and they make it harder to fully capture the outsized returns that can come from the spectacular success of a single company. For this reason, ETFs may be best used as a tool to secure the core stability of your portfolio, while you complement them with direct investments in specific high-conviction names you have researched in depth. A so-called core-satellite strategy can be a compelling alternative.