36 quantum computing companies ranked by capability and future prospects (Autumn 2026)
The Summer 2026 edition ranked 29 companies in the quantum industry; the Autumn edition has been expanded to 36 companies.
In just the past few months, there has been a substantial increase in the information used to evaluate companies: large funding rounds, revenue growth, government contracts, quantum computer deliveries, next-generation hardware, logical qubitslogical qubitsLogical Qubit / Logical QubitA unit of information treated as a single qubit protected from errors by using multiple physical qubits and quantum error correction.QI NoteSimply having “created a logical qubit” does not necessarily mean fault-tolerant quantum computing (FTQC) has been achieved. One should verify logical error rates, operational/gate performance, and scalability., quantum error correctionquantum error correction量子誤り訂正 / Quantum Error Correction / QECA technique that distributes information across multiple physical qubits and detects and corrects errors without directly disturbing the quantum state.QI NoteSimply implementing it does not automatically provide practical fault tolerance. What matters is whether the logical error rate is improved relative to the physical error rate. (QEC), and investments in manufacturing sites. Many companies are also targeting entry into the Japanese market.
New additions to the tracked set for this edition are Bluefors, Diraq, OQC, Qblox, Quantum Machines, QuantWare, QUDORA, QuEL, and Riverlane — nine companies in total. Meanwhile, Quantum Circuits (evaluated individually in the summer edition) was acquired by D-Wave, and Oxford Ionics was acquired by IonQ; from the Autumn edition onward they are each consolidated into their acquirers’ evaluations.
In the Autumn edition we placed particular emphasis on the areas other than qubitqubitQubit / Quantum Bit / QubitThe basic unit of information in a quantum computer. It can represent not only 0 or 1 but also a quantum state that is a superposition of them.QI NoteHaving more qubits does not necessarily mean higher performance. Error rates, connectivity, coherence time, and the number of logical qubits are also important. count.
The competitive axes for quantum computers are expanding beyond simply increasing physical qubitphysical qubitPhysical Qubit / Physical QubitIndividual qubits that are physically created and manipulated on a quantum processor. They are also used to form logical qubits.QI NoteA large number of physical qubits does not by itself indicate practical computational capability. Error rates, connectivity, and the number of physical qubits required per logical qubit are also important. counts to include logical qubits, QEC, real-time control, classical–quantum integration, manufacturing reproducibility — in other words, the ability to realize a quantum computer as a complete system.
Quantum Index evaluated 36 major quantum-related companies comprehensively, considering technology uniqueness and feasibility, distance to productization, revenue and customer base, fundraising strength, roadmaps, QEC, and manufacturing capability.
This is not a pure performance ranking of quantum computers. It evaluates where companies are likely to stand in the quantum industry over the next three to five years, taking into account hardware, software, quantum control, QEC, cryogenics, optimization, and more — not just raw machine performance.
We prioritized verifiable technical achievements, deployed systems, customers, revenue, contracts, and manufacturing capability over speculative future roadmaps.
NETWORKView the industry network surrounding tracked companies →Capability and prospects ranking
1st Quantinuum | Ion-trap quantum computers
Previous: 1 →
With high‑fidelity qubits, QEC, software and security, Quantinuum still presents the best balance of technology and business.
On Helios they are advancing demonstrations using logical qubits and growing revenue. Collaborations such as with Quanta Computer indicate they are beginning to build capacity for future large‑scale system manufacturing.
2nd IBM Quantum | Superconducting quantum computers
Previous: 3 ↑
We moved IBM up to second, overtaking Google.
With Nighthawk r2 they have greatly improved circuit execution throughput, and they are progressing demonstrations of logical qubits that combine QEC and error mitigation. From Qiskit and cloud integration to HPC, their ability to integrate quantum computers into actual computing infrastructure is strong (see).
3rd Google Quantum AI | Superconducting quantum computers
Previous: 2 ↓
Google remains world‑leading in foundational research, including QEC work using Willow.
The ranking drop does not reflect a decline in technical ability but rather that IBM and Quantinuum have advanced not only QEC but also products, deployment platforms and manufacturing. A major research breakthrough could easily change Google’s position.
4th IonQ | Ion-trap quantum computers
Previous: 4 →
As a quantum-focused company, IonQ is rapidly expanding its business and vertically integrating from QPUQPUQuantum Processor / Quantum Processor / Quantum Processing Unit / QPUThe central part of the hardware that houses qubits and performs quantum computational operations such as quantum gates and measurements.QI NoteThe performance of a QPU cannot be judged by the number of qubits alone. Gate fidelity, connectivity, speed, error rates, and other factors must be considered together. to manufacturing through acquisitions such as Oxford Ionics and SkyWater (see Superion 256 product launch).
The electronic-control ion trap technology that Oxford Ionics brought is being incorporated into IonQ’s product roadmap (for example Superion 256). For the Autumn edition we do not treat Oxford Ionics as a separate company but evaluate it as part of IonQ’s technical base.
However, with acquisitions broadening the company’s scope, it becomes important to separate growth driven by core quantum computer advances from growth due to acquired businesses.
5th D‑Wave | Quantum annealing and gate‑model quantum computers
Previous: 5 →
D‑Wave’s strength lies not only in future promise but in converting quantum annealingquantum annealingQuantum Annealing / Quantum AnnealingA computational method that uses quantum fluctuations to search for good solutions to combinatorial optimization problems and the like. Problems are solved by mapping them into a form where one searches for low-energy states.QI NoteQuantum annealing, unlike general-purpose gate-model quantum computers, is a scheme specialized for solving optimization problems. It was theoretically proposed in the 1990s by Hidetoshi Nishimori and others, and today D-Wave develops representative commercial systems. When evaluating performance, one should check not only the number of qubits but also how the problem is embedded and the comparison conditions with classical methods. into actual customer use and revenue.
In 2026 they acquired Quantum Circuits and entered the gate‑model space using dual‑rail qubits (see). From the Autumn edition we treat Quantum Circuits as integrated into D‑Wave’s dual‑platform strategy rather than as a separate company.
Whether gate‑model entry will create synergies with their existing quantum annealing business remains to be seen.
6th PsiQuantum | Photonic quantum computers
Previous: 7 ↑
PsiQuantum’s strategy to build large‑scale FTQCFTQCFault-Tolerant Quantum Computing / FTQCA method for future large-scale quantum computing that uses quantum error correction to allow correct computation to continue even when physical errors occur.QI NoteA demonstration of quantum error correction is not the same as realizing FTQC. Logical error rates, the number of physical qubits required, logical gate performance, and so on are important. from the start carries high technical risk, but their investments in the manufacturing infrastructure required for that vision have begun to materialize.
We value their investment in the ability to build — photonic switches, single‑photon detectors, advanced packaging — not just roadmaps (see funding award).
7th Microsoft Quantum | Topological quantum computers
Previous: 6 ↓
If topological qubits are realized, they could fundamentally change QEC overheads.
However, Microsoft currently lacks large‑scale computational performance comparable to the top companies. The upside is potentially enormous but the technical risk remains high.
8th QuEra | Neutral‑atom quantum computers
Previous: 8 →
QuEra is moving not only toward scalability through arranging many atoms, but also toward emphasizing QEC and logical performance.
They offer on‑premises deployments and machine access on AWS, and among neutral‑atom approaches they are well positioned to translate research results into products.
9th Quantum Machines | Quantum control hardware and software
NEW
Rather than qubits themselves, Quantum Machines has built a strong position in the control layer that runs them.
They are advancing integration of CUDA‑Q, GPU, CPU and quantum processors at low latency (see), and as QEC and hybrid quantum–classical workflows gain importance their presence could grow.
10th Q‑CTRL | Quantum control and software
Previous: 10 →
Focusing on quantum control, compilation and error suppression, Q‑CTRL develops techniques to extract better results from existing QPUs (see).
They are expanding into quantum sensingquantum sensingQuantum Sensing / Quantum SensingTechnology that utilizes quantum phenomena such as superposition and quantum interference to measure magnetic fields, time, gravity, and other quantities with high sensitivity.QI NoteA field of quantum technology distinct from quantum computing; practical implementations already exist. When evaluating performance, check sensitivity, resolution, and the measurement environment. as well (see), and their hardware‑agnostic business model is an advantage.
11th Bluefors | Ultra‑low temperature refrigeration and dilution refrigerators
NEW
Bluefors supplies the ultra‑low temperature environments essential for superconducting and spin qubit development, and is a representative instrument maker supporting the quantum industry.
However, domestic players such as IHI and Taiyo Nippon Sanso are developing dilutiondilutionDilution / Dilution / Shareholder Dilution / Equity DilutionAn increase in the number of shares—such as through the issuance of new shares—that causes existing shareholders' ownership percentage and the value per share to be relatively reduced.QI NoteCan occur through issuance of new shares for fundraising or through stock options, among other mechanisms. You should check not only the amount raised but also the number of shares after issuance and the resulting change in existing shareholders' ownership. refrigeration systems for ~10,000‑physical‑qubit class systems for AIST, which suggests future competition may intensify.
We value Bluefors’s “pickaxe”‑style position, able to serve multiple quantum hardware companies rather than betting on a single QPU approach.
12th IQM | Superconducting quantum computers
Previous: 14 ↑
IQM has been steadily delivering on‑premises quantum computers across Europe.
We also value their next‑generation roadmap that considers QEC (e.g., Halocene) while selling actual systems (see).
13th Alice & Bob | Cat qubits
Previous: 11 ↓
Alice & Bob has clear technical differentiation by suppressing specific errors at the hardware level using cat qubitscat qubitsCat Qubit / Cat Qubit / Schrödinger Cat QubitA qubit designed to use "cat states"—superpositions of distinct quantum states—to make certain types of errors less likely.QI NoteIt may reduce the overhead required for error correction, but not all errors are automatically suppressed. Attention should also be paid to the remaining error rates..
They announced an 18‑cat‑qubit on‑premises system, “Helium” (see), and have begun moving from qubit research to system provision.
14th Xanadu | Photonic quantum computers
Previous: 16 ↑
Xanadu has a strong software base with PennyLanePennyLanePennyLaneAn open-source quantum software library developed by Xanadu, used for building and executing quantum circuits and for quantum machine learning.QI NoteNot specific to any particular quantum hardware; it can interface with multiple devices and simulators. For demonstrations, check which backend was used. while also investing in hardware for FTQC.
We value their effort to build a manufacturing base in Canada covering chips, packaging, testing and module assembly (see).
15th Infleqtion | Neutral‑atom quantum computers and quantum sensing
Previous: 15 →
In addition to quantum computing, Infleqtion operates multiple quantum technology businesses including sensing and atomic clocks (see).
Their revenue size is relatively large for a pure quantum company (see), but in neutral‑atom QPU performance they should be compared to peers such as QuEra.
16th QuantWare | Superconducting quantum processors
NEW
QuantWare occupies a unique position supplying QPUs themselves to external customers rather than building complete quantum computers (see).
They are pursuing large funding rounds and investments in manufacturing sites, but it is important to evaluate their roadmap for large qubit counts separately from actual QPU performance.
17th Fujitsu | Quantum computing
Previous: 9 ↓
Fujitsu has substantial development power as a Japanese company, including superconducting quantum computersuperconducting quantum computerSuperconducting Quantum Computing / Superconducting Quantum Computing / Superconducting QubitAn implementation approach for quantum computers that operates superconducting circuits at ultra-low (cryogenic) temperatures and uses electrical quantum states as quantum bits (qubits).QI NoteCharacterized by fast gate operations, but performance is not determined by qubit count alone. Gate fidelity, coherence time, connectivity, and support for error correction should also be verified. development with RIKEN, integration with HPC, and infrastructure for domestic government and research institutions.
However, in the Autumn edition we placed more weight on QEC and logical performance than on physical qubit counts. We would like to see logical performance indicators that can be compared directly with leading overseas companies.
18th Atom Computing | Neutral‑atom quantum computers
Previous: 12 ↓
Atom Computing remains strong on scalability — handling more than 1,000 atoms and collaborating with Microsoft — but we have down‑weighted raw physical qubit counts. The key going forward is how that scale converts to logical performance.
19th Pasqal | Neutral‑atom quantum computers
Previous: 18 ↓
Pasqal continues active fundraising and international expansion, and business activity remains strong.
However, the neutral‑atom field is competitive. Beyond funding and the number of deals, the decisive factor will be how much actual machine performance and commercial deployment they can demonstrate.
20th Qblox | Quantum control and readout hardware
NEW
Qblox supplies control hardware for quantum computers and is expanding into real‑time control for the QEC era (see).
In a demo with Riverlane they built a loop from measurement data acquisition to decoding and conditional correction. Going forward, performance evaluation must include not only speed but the corrected accuracy after error correction.
21st Riverlane | Quantum error correction
NEW
Riverlane is one of the few companies attempting to productize QEC as an independent product layer.
Centering on Deltaflow, they collaborate with multiple hardware vendors. If a QEC market materializes, the opportunity is large, but they will also face competition from hardware companies such as IBM and Google that may choose to develop in‑house solutions.
22nd Classiq | Quantum software and algorithms
Previous: 13 ↓
Classiq has unique software that generates and optimizes quantum circuits from high‑level models.
However, as CUDA‑Q and hardware vendors’ SDKs become more capable, it is unclear how large an independent commercial market a separate quantum software layer can form.
23rd Photonic Inc. | Photonic and spin‑based quantum computers
Previous: 20 ↓
Photonic Inc. aims for modular FTQC by combining spin qubits with photonic interconnects.
They are advancing plans for major manufacturing facilities (see), but manufacturing capability and actual quantum computer performance are separate matters; we want to see results from working machines.
24th OptQC | Photonic quantum computers
Previous: 26 ↑
OptQC is one of the Japanese companies whose evaluation rose significantly in the Autumn edition.
Following machine operation they secured large funding and expanded an R&D hub. The next questions are not target qubit counts but machine performance and second and third orders for delivery (see partnership).
25th planqc | Neutral‑atom quantum computers
Previous: 19 ↓
planqc is advancing government projects and on‑premises deployments, mainly in Germany.
Winning government procurement is a strength, but the neutral‑atom field is competitive; the focus will be on demonstrable machine performance and sustained commercial demand.
26th Fixstars Amplify | Optimization and quantum software
Previous: 17 ↓
Amplify, JIJ and Strangeworks all address quantum and quantum‑inspired optimization and support multiple hardware and solver backends.
Amplify’s distinguishing feature is its in‑house high‑performance GPU annealing solver, “Amplify AE.” While supporting quantum annealers and gate‑based machines, their business centers on practical combinatorial optimizationcombinatorial optimizationCombinatorial Optimization / Combinatorial OptimizationAn optimization problem that seeks, from many possible combinations of choices, the combination that satisfies given constraints while optimizing the objective value.QI NoteA representative candidate application of quantum computing, but classical algorithms are also very powerful. When evaluating quantum methods, comparisons under equivalent conditions are important..
Evaluation will hinge not only on quantum technology but on how far they can scale in the current optimization market.
27th Rigetti | Superconducting quantum computers
Previous: 21 ↓
Rigetti is an independent company with an in‑house fab, handling chip design and manufacturing through to cloud delivery.
However, competition in the superconducting space is strong. Rigetti will need to show clear technical differentiation that leads into the QEC era.
28th Diraq | Silicon‑spin quantum computers
NEW
Diraq targets large‑scale integration using silicon‑spin qubits, which have high compatibility with existing semiconductor manufacturing technologies.
They present roadmaps toward hundreds of thousands of physical qubits and ~1,000 logical qubits, but the gap to current hardware is large. We will watch whether they can convert their roadmap into actual integration technology.
29th QuEL | Quantum control hardware
NEW
QuEL is a quantum control hardware company spun out of Osaka University.
They do not promise flashy quantum computer roadmaps, but it is notable that they are already profitable and generating revenue from product sales — unusual for a quantum startup.
In addition to superconducting platforms, they are developing control systems for ion traps. Expanding their customer base domestically and internationally is the next focus.
Related: QuEL feature article
30th OQC | Superconducting quantum computers
NEW
OQC is a UK‑based superconducting quantum computer company developing systems designed to integrate into data centers.
They are working on QEC integration, but compared with IBM and IQM there is still limited externally verifiable information on machine performance, deliveries, and revenue.
31st QunaSys | Quantum algorithms and software
Previous: 24 ↓
QunaSys has long accumulated collaborative and contract research, mainly in quantum chemistry and materials calculations, with Japanese companies.
They have high domain expertise, but it remains unclear how to convert research outputs into large, recurring revenue streams.
32nd QUDORA | Ion‑trap quantum computers
NEW
QUDORA is a Germany‑based ion‑trap company that has begun international expansion, including setting up a Japanese subsidiary.
They are building sales channels to enable machine use in Japan and elsewhere, but information on machine performance and business scale comparable to Quantinuum or IonQ is still limited.
33rd Strangeworks | Quantum computing software
Previous: 25 ↓
Like Fixstars Amplify and JIJ, Strangeworks deals with quantum and quantum‑inspired optimization, but it acts strongly as a platform aggregating compute resources from multiple vendors.
Following the acquisition of Quantagonia they added HybridSolver and other optimization features. As multi‑backend support becomes standard, the question is how much unique value beyond a connection layer they can provide.
34th JIJ | Optimization and quantum software
Previous: 27 ↓
Like Fixstars Amplify and Strangeworks, JIJ focuses on quantum and quantum‑inspired optimization and supports multiple compute backends.
They are active in quantum R&D and outreach, but publicly disclosed case studies show use of mathematical optimization to solve corporate planning and operational problems. The key is whether such project‑based business can be developed into reproducible products and recurring revenue.
35th Quemix | Quantum algorithms and software
Previous: 28 ↓
Quemix continues collaborative research with companies, focused on quantum chemistry and materials simulations.
Materials is a promising application area for quantum computing, but full adoption depends on FTQC progress. The important question is whether current collaborations and contract work can be converted into steady, stock‑type revenue.
36th Yaqumo | Neutral‑atom quantum computers
Previous: 29 ↓
Yaqumo is a Japanese neutral‑atom quantum computer startup originating from Kyoto University’s Institute for Molecular Science.
They are developing components and domestic supply chains, but being relatively newly established there is little public information on machine performance, products, customers, or revenue that can be compared to other firms.
The bottom ranking does not imply low technical quality; it simply means that, at present, they have the least publicly available results for comparison.
Changes in ranking since the summer edition
For the Autumn edition we added nine new companies and consolidated Quantum Circuits and Oxford Ionics into D‑Wave and IonQ respectively, after those acquisitions.
Therefore, a straight comparison of overall rankings between the Summer and Autumn editions can be misleading: it’s hard to tell whether a company dropped because new entrants displaced it or because its evaluation actually changed.
To clarify this, we extracted the 27 companies that were evaluated in both the summer and autumn editions and compared ranks within that constant group.
| Company | Autumn overall rank | Autumn rank (within continuing 27) | Summer rank (within continuing 27) | Net change |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Quantinuum | 1 | 1 | 1 | → |
| IBM Quantum | 2 | 2 | 3 | ↑1 |
| Google Quantum AI | 3 | 3 | 2 | ↓1 |
| IonQ | 4 | 4 | 4 | → |
| D‑Wave | 5 | 5 | 5 | → |
| PsiQuantum | 6 | 6 | 7 | ↑1 |
| Microsoft Quantum | 7 | 7 | 6 | ↓1 |
| QuEra | 8 | 8 | 8 | → |
| Q‑CTRL | 10 | 9 | 10 | ↑1 |
| IQM | 12 | 10 | 14 | ↑4 |
| Alice & Bob | 13 | 11 | 11 | → |
| Xanadu | 14 | 12 | 16 | ↑4 |
| Infleqtion | 15 | 13 | 15 | ↑2 |
| Fujitsu | 17 | 14 | 9 | ↓5 |
| Atom Computing | 18 | 15 | 12 | ↓3 |
| Pasqal | 19 | 16 | 18 | ↑2 |
| Classiq | 22 | 17 | 13 | ↓4 |
| Photonic Inc. | 23 | 18 | 20 | ↑2 |
| OptQC | 24 | 19 | 24 | ↑5 |
| planqc | 25 | 20 | 19 | ↓1 |
| Fixstars Amplify | 26 | 21 | 17 | ↓4 |
| Rigetti | 27 | 22 | 21 | ↓1 |
| QunaSys | 31 | 23 | 22 | ↓1 |
| Strangeworks | 33 | 24 | 23 | ↓1 |
| JIJ | 34 | 25 | 25 | → |
| Quemix | 35 | 26 | 26 | → |
| Yaqumo | 36 | 27 | 27 | → |
This comparison reveals changes not visible from overall ranks alone.
For example, IQM is overall 12th but rose from 14th to 10th within the constant 27‑company set. Xanadu moved from 16th to 12th, and OptQC jumped from 24th to 19th.
Conversely, Fujitsu’s decline is not only due to the new entrants; even within the unchanged peer group it fell from 9th to 14th. Classiq dropped from 13th to 17th, and Fixstars Amplify from 17th to 21st.
Looking only at Fixstars Amplify’s overall rank would suggest a fall from 17th to 26th, but compared within the same company set the effective drop is four places.
Also note that for companies below Oxford Ionics in the summer edition (e.g., QunaSys, Strangeworks, JIJ), we removed the acquired firms from the population before comparison. Thus mechanical rank increases due to M&A are not counted as “net change.”
The overall rank indicates a company’s position within the quantum industry as of Autumn 2026; the rank within the continuing 27 shows how a company’s evaluation actually changed from summer to autumn.
What the Autumn 2026 ranking shows
Even over the short interval between the summer and autumn editions, the key metrics to watch in the quantum industry have changed considerably.
Previously, “how many qubits” was the clearest comparative metric. Today, the same 100 physical qubits can differ dramatically in computational potential depending on error rates, circuit depthcircuit depthCircuit Depth / Circuit Depth / Quantum Circuit DepthIn a quantum circuit, a metric that—after grouping together operations that can be executed simultaneously—indicates how many sequential layers (stages) of gate operations are required to complete the computation.QI NoteIn general, deeper circuits are more susceptible to noise, but performance is not determined by depth alone. Gate types, error rates, connectivity, and the circuit after compilation must also be considered., execution speed, connectivity, and logical performance after QEC.
Accordingly, companies such as IBM, Quantinuum and QuEra appear to be shifting focus from simple physical qubit counts to metrics like logical qubits, execution throughputthroughputThroughput / ThroughputA metric indicating the amount of work that can be processed per unit time. In quantum computing, it represents how quickly circuits or jobs can be repeatedly executed, among other things.QI NoteThe definition and units of throughput vary between companies and systems. When comparing, check not only the raw number of executions but also conditions such as circuit size, accuracy, and wait times., and QEC performance.
At the same time, the importance of companies around the periphery of the quantum computer is increasing.
Newly ranked entrants near the top — Quantum Machines and Qblox — do not build qubits themselves. Riverlane is not a QPU maker but specializes in QEC, and Bluefors produces cryogenic equipment.
To realize large‑scale FTQC you need more than qubits: you need fast measurement readout, classical processing of results and feedback to the quantum system (control loops), and stable ultra‑low temperature environments. These system‑level technologies are essential.
Another prominent theme is investment in manufacturing.
PsiQuantum, Xanadu, QuantWare, OptQC and Photonic are investing in manufacturing facilities and R&D bases.
This does not mean quantum computers have entered mass production.
Rather, companies are starting to recognize the difference between producing a single high‑performance machine in a lab and repeatedly manufacturing systems of consistent quality.
At the same time, large fundraising and ambitious roadmaps alone did not drive rank increases.
Numbers like “10,000 qubits”, “1 million qubits” or “1,000 logical qubits” are easy to understand, but most are future targets. Without visibility into logical error rates, gate performance, circuit depth, execution speed and manufacturing yield, you cannot judge real computing capability.
The same applies to revenue.
Revenue can come from cloud access fees, system sales, government research contracts, quantum sensing, or acquired legacy businesses — each has a different meaning. Ranking by revenue alone does not necessarily reflect progress in quantum computer businesses.
Quantum Index emphasizes who is actually making tangible progress rather than who is making the boldest claims.
We will continue to follow logical qubits, QEC performance, machine deliveries, revenue, customers, government contracts and manufacturing capability — not focusing on any single metric but tracking whether each achievement connects to the next.
※This article reflects the Quantum Index editorial team’s evaluation based on public information available as of September 2026. It is not a ranking of raw quantum computer performance nor a recommendation to buy or sell securities or other financial instruments. For private companies, disclosure of revenue and technical performance may be limited, and a lack of public information can affect rankings.
NETWORKView the industry network surrounding tracked companies →
