The Quantum Race

Who will build the next computing layer beyond classical silicon? Six companies, six technical routes – and the question of whether the market is already pricing in the winners.

This report is an investment-oriented introduction to quantum computing, not a prediction that any one company will win. The sector is early, technically complex and highly speculative. A promising architecture does not automatically make a company commercially successful, and a strong company does not automatically make its stock attractive at every price.

Figures are based on company-reported results for the second quarter of 2026 (as of June 30). Market capitalizations are as of early October 2026 and rounded. Company roadmaps are targets, not guarantees.

The next computing revolution?

For decades, computing has followed a familiar path: smaller transistors, faster chips, more efficient software and increasingly powerful data centres. That model has delivered extraordinary progress. But some problems remain brutally difficult even for the world’s best classical supercomputers.

Quantum computing approaches computation from a different direction. Instead of relying only on classical bits, quantum computers use quantum states such as superposition and entanglement to process information. For certain specialised problems, a sufficiently capable quantum system could eventually outperform the best classical alternatives.

That last phrase matters: for certain problems.

Quantum computers will not simply replace laptops, CPUs or GPUs. They are more likely to become specialised tools used alongside classical computing, high-performance computing and AI infrastructure.

The potential applications are wide-ranging: molecular simulation, materials science, optimisation, chemistry, cryptography and some areas of financial modelling. But potential is not the same as proven commercial value. Many applications still require hardware that is more reliable, scalable and fault-tolerant than today’s systems.

At Grabit, the question is not whether quantum computing sounds revolutionary. The question is which companies can turn a difficult scientific challenge into useful products — and whether public-market investors are paying a sensible price for that possibility.

Why now? The error-correction test

The quantum industry has spent years demonstrating increasingly sophisticated devices. The next phase is harder: making quantum computers reliable enough to perform useful work consistently.

Qubits are fragile. Noise and environmental interference can introduce errors, and adding more physical qubits does not automatically produce a more capable computer. A large system with unreliable qubits may be less useful than a smaller system with better control.

That is why error correction and logical qubits matter. A logical qubit is built from multiple physical qubits and error-correction techniques, with the goal of protecting useful quantum information. The practical challenge is to reduce errors while keeping the overhead manageable.

When we assess a company, we look beyond headline qubit counts. What counts:

• Gate fidelity and error rates
• Circuit depth
• Logical-qubit performance
• Uptime and reproducibility
• Whether customers can run workloads that matter

Independent validation and repeatable results carry more weight than a single impressive demonstration.

There is no single technical route guaranteed to win. The race is still open.

Six companies, six different approaches

1. IonQ (IONQ) — trapped-ion quantum computing

IonQ uses trapped ions as qubits. The approach is attractive because trapped ions can offer strong qubit connectivity and high-quality operations. The challenge is engineering systems that scale while maintaining speed, stability and practical economics.

IonQ has expanded beyond a narrow hardware story into networking, sensing and other quantum-related areas — and this summer it acquired chipmaker SkyWater. That broader platform may create commercial opportunities, but it also means investors should examine how much reported revenue comes from quantum computing itself versus adjacent products and acquisitions.

The bull case is that IonQ becomes one of the leading commercial quantum platforms, with a growing customer base and a path toward increasingly capable systems. The bear case is that expectations and valuation move ahead of technical and financial reality, while losses and integration costs remain high.

GRABIT TAKE: IonQ is one of the strongest commercial-scale candidates among the pure-play names in this report. The key question is whether its revenue growth can eventually translate into more sustainable economics.

2. Infleqtion (INFQ) — neutral-atom quantum computing

Infleqtion is pursuing neutral-atom quantum technology. Neutral atoms can be arranged and controlled using optical techniques, offering a different path to building larger quantum systems. The architecture has attracted interest because it may offer scalability advantages, although practical performance must still be demonstrated.

The company also works across quantum sensing and related technologies. That breadth can create nearer-term commercial opportunities, but investors should distinguish revenue from adjacent activities from evidence of a scalable, commercially useful quantum-computing platform.

Infleqtion reported Q2 2026 revenue of $13.5 million, up 157% year over year, and updated its 2026 revenue outlook to approximately $45.1 million. The change reflected the timing of revenue recognition on two government contracts, with corresponding reductions in revenue recognised in earlier years. Operating losses also increased.

GRABIT TAKE: Infleqtion is an interesting challenger with a different technical route. We want to see repeatable execution, credible technical milestones and evidence that growth can improve the underlying economics.

3. Rigetti Computing (RGTI) — superconducting qubits

Rigetti builds superconducting quantum processors. This architecture uses circuits fabricated with techniques that have some similarities to semiconductor manufacturing and operates at extremely low temperatures. It is a competitive field that includes major research groups and established technology companies.

The opportunity is to improve processor performance and scale while keeping control, calibration and error rates manageable. The challenge is that technical progress must translate into systems customers can use and pay for.

Rigetti reported Q2 2026 revenue of $5.1 million, an operating loss of $28.1 million and a GAAP net loss of $52.6 million. It reported approximately $541.3 million in cash, cash equivalents and available-for-sale investments at June 30, 2026.

GRABIT TAKE: Rigetti has financial resources to continue developing its technology, but the commercial business remains small relative to its cost base. Execution, revenue growth and the risk of future dilution remain central.

4. D-Wave Quantum (QBTS) — quantum annealing and gate-model development

D-Wave is different from several companies in this report because its established commercial focus is quantum annealing, a specialised approach aimed at optimisation problems. It is also investing in gate-model capabilities, broadening its long-term ambitions.

The bull case is that D-Wave can sell useful systems and cloud access for specific workloads before general-purpose, fault-tolerant quantum computers arrive. The bear case is that its addressable market is narrower than the broadest quantum-computing narratives suggest, or that customer interest fails to become recurring revenue.

D-Wave reported Q2 2026 revenue of $3.1 million. First-half revenue was $5.9 million, down from $18.1 million a year earlier, a comparison affected by a $13.7 million system sale in the first half of 2025. First-half bookings were $35.5 million, up from $2.9 million — but $20 million of that came from a single deal: an Advantage2 system for Florida Atlantic University. Bookings are not recognised revenue.

GRABIT TAKE: D-Wave’s commercial approach is worth taking seriously, but we need to track how bookings convert into recognised revenue and repeat customer use.

5. Quantum Computing Inc. (QUBT) — photonics and manufacturing

Quantum Computing Inc. is pursuing photonics-based quantum technology and has also been developing semiconductor and photonics manufacturing capabilities. Photonics can be attractive because light can carry quantum information, but scaling a complete system requires more than demonstrating an optical component.

QUBT reported Q2 2026 revenue of $5.6 million and approximately $1.3 billion in cash, cash equivalents and investments. Its revenue was primarily driven by photonics products serving existing aerospace, government and industrial applications.

That distinction is important. Adjacent photonics revenue may support the business and its development plans, but it is not the same as proving that a scalable quantum-computing platform has achieved broad commercial adoption.

GRABIT TAKE: QUBT has a large financial cushion relative to its current revenue, but it remains a high-risk thesis. We want clear evidence of technical progress and a credible route from photonics capabilities to a differentiated quantum-computing business.

6. IBM (IBM) — the full-stack enterprise benchmark

IBM is not a pure-play quantum stock. It is a large technology company with established enterprise customers, hardware, software, cloud services and research capabilities. Its quantum ecosystem makes it an important benchmark for the entire sector.

IBM’s superconducting approach is supported by a broad software and developer environment. The company has published a roadmap targeting a fault-tolerant system called Starling in 2029. That is a company target, not a guaranteed outcome.

The bull case is that IBM converts its research and enterprise relationships into a durable quantum-computing platform. The bear case is that technical and commercial milestones take longer than expected, or that quantum computing remains too small to materially affect IBM’s overall financial performance for many years.

GRABIT TAKE: IBM belongs in this report as a technology benchmark, not as a directly comparable pure-play investment. Buying IBM stock means buying a diversified technology business, not just its quantum programme.

The competitors you can’t ignore

The six companies on our cover are not the entire race. Some important competitors are newly listed, private or part of much larger technology businesses. They can bring deep research budgets, established customers, manufacturing expertise and the patience to develop technology over many years.

Quantinuum (QNT) — the newly listed trapped-ion contender

Quantinuum deserves a place in any serious discussion of quantum computing. Its trapped-ion approach puts it in direct technological competition with IonQ, while its software ecosystem and work on error correction make it more than a hardware story. The company listed on Nasdaq in June 2026 under the ticker QNT, with Honeywell remaining a major shareholder — giving investors another pure-play name to compare IonQ against.

Google Quantum AI — multiple technical routes

Google has spent years developing superconducting quantum processors and has reported progress in quantum error correction. In March 2026, it also announced that it was expanding its research into neutral-atom quantum computing. That is significant: Google can pursue more than one technical route while drawing on a much larger research and computing ecosystem than most quantum-focused companies.

Google is not a pure-play quantum stock, so its quantum progress is difficult to translate into a standalone investment valuation. But from a technology perspective, it is impossible to ignore.

Microsoft — an ambitious topological approach

Microsoft is pursuing topological qubits, an approach that could offer advantages if the underlying physics and engineering work as intended. However, claims around topological quantum hardware have faced scientific scrutiny. We should neither dismiss the work nor treat early claims as proof that the technology has already won. Independent validation, reproducibility and a credible path to useful computation are the milestones that matter.

PsiQuantum — the photonics challenger

PsiQuantum is a major private competitor pursuing photonic quantum computing and large-scale, fault-tolerant systems using semiconductor manufacturing processes. Its ambition is enormous, but so is the execution challenge. Building facilities, integrating photonic components and achieving reliable error correction are not the same as demonstrating that a commercially useful system is already operating.

The competition is not simply IonQ versus Rigetti, or D-Wave versus QUBT.

It is a race between different architectures, business models and levels of financial backing. Being one of the best publicly traded quantum stocks does not automatically mean being one of the world’s strongest quantum-computing businesses.

The valuation reality check

A promising technology can still be a bad investment at the wrong price. A quantum company can have exciting research, a strong balance sheet and a potentially enormous future market — and still be priced for years of success that have not happened yet.

The figures below are snapshots and are not all directly comparable: some companies sell hardware and services, others generate revenue from photonics or adjacent businesses, and IBM is a diversified technology company.

Annualised revenue = Q2 revenue × 4. Market caps as of early October 2026, rounded. IonQ’s market cap includes SkyWater; its revenue does not.

What the numbers actually tell us

IonQ has the strongest revenue scale among the pure-play companies in this comparison, but losses remain substantial. It reported Q2 2026 revenue of $80.1 million and raised full-year guidance to $280–290 million — excluding SkyWater, which IonQ acquired for about $1.8 billion and closed on July 31. Its GAAP net loss was about $1.87 billion, of which about $1.65 billion was a non-cash remeasurement. Adjusted EBITDA loss was $120.3 million for the quarter. Fast growth is not the same as profitability.

Infleqtion is growing quickly from a smaller base. Its Q2 revenue was $13.5 million, up 157% year over year, and its updated 2026 revenue outlook was approximately $45.1 million. Operating losses increased at the same time.

Rigetti has capital to work with, but needs to convert progress into a larger business. Its revenue remains small relative to operating costs, so future milestones, customer demand and cash burn matter.

D-Wave’s bookings tell a different story from its reported revenue. First-half bookings rose sharply, but largely thanks to a single system deal. The conversion rate, timing and repeatability of those orders are what investors need to track.

QUBT’s cash position is large relative to current revenue — roughly two thirds of its market cap. But revenue quality matters. Photonics and manufacturing products may be commercially valuable, yet investors should not assume those sales prove that its quantum-computing architecture has achieved scale.

On annualised revenue, IonQ and Infleqtion trade at around 50–55 times sales, QUBT around 85 times, Rigetti around 250 times and D-Wave around 500 times.

A price-to-sales ratio can be useful, but only when we understand what the sales represent. A company with a large valuation and growing quantum revenue is not directly comparable to a company whose revenue primarily comes from adjacent photonics products. Nor should bookings be treated as sales, or cash on the balance sheet be treated as proof that a company will succeed.

A fair valuation comparison looks at market capitalization, revenue basis, cash and investments, debt, operating cash burn, share dilution and the nature of the underlying business — and forward estimates are estimates, not facts.

Our rule: we will not call a stock cheap simply because its share price is low, its cash balance is large or its technology sounds revolutionary. We need a credible path from research to recurring revenue — and a valuation that does not already assume the company has won.

The GRABIT scorecard

We do not believe every quantum stock deserves the same level of attention. Technology, commercial progress, financial resources and valuation all matter — and they do not point to the same winner. This scorecard is a qualitative assessment, not a scientific measurement or a buy recommendation.

How to read the table: high technology potential does not mean broad commercial quantum advantage has already been achieved. Strong financial resources do not mean the company is profitable. Low valuation comfort means we see limited room to call the stock inexpensive based on the evidence available — not that the share price must fall.

Our current take

IonQ — the commercial-scale candidate.

It has the clearest revenue scale among the pure-play companies in this comparison and substantial financial resources. The risk is that investors may already be paying for a great deal of future success while losses remain material.

Infleqtion — the neutral-atom challenger.

It offers a different route to scalable quantum computing and reported strong revenue growth. We want repeatable execution, progress on its technical roadmap and evidence that growth can eventually translate into better economics.

Rigetti — the higher-risk hardware bet.

It has a meaningful cash cushion and a clear focus on superconducting systems. The challenge is proving that technical milestones can lead to a much larger commercial business before capital needs or dilution become a bigger issue.

D-Wave — the specialist with a commercial angle.

Its annealing systems target optimisation problems today, giving it a different commercial narrative from companies focused primarily on general-purpose gate-model machines. The key test is whether bookings and customer use translate into durable, recurring revenue.

QUBT — cash-rich, but still needs to prove the core thesis.

Its balance sheet gives it room to invest, and its photonics and manufacturing activities may provide routes to commercialisation. But we need to distinguish adjacent photonics sales from evidence that its quantum architecture can become a competitive, scalable platform.

IBM — the established ecosystem benchmark.

IBM has an enterprise customer base, a broad software and hardware ecosystem, and a published roadmap toward fault-tolerant systems. It is a valuable benchmark for the sector, but buying IBM stock is not the same as investing in a pure-play quantum company.

What would change our minds?

We would become more constructive on a company that demonstrates independently credible technical progress, recurring commercial demand, improving revenue quality and a believable path toward lower cash burn.

We would become more cautious if roadmap dates repeatedly slip, bookings fail to become revenue, dilution accelerates, or a stock’s valuation rises much faster than its commercial evidence.

The GRABIT principle is simple: follow the evidence, not the excitement.

2030: three possible scenarios

Bull case

Error-corrected systems improve faster than expected, early commercial applications prove valuable, and customers begin paying for workloads that classical systems cannot perform as efficiently. Companies that combine credible hardware, software, customer access and sufficient capital could become important technology platforms.

Base case

Quantum computing makes real progress, but adoption is uneven. Some specialised applications and research workloads create revenue, while large-scale fault-tolerant systems take longer to commercialise. A few companies emerge as leaders, but many stocks experience extreme volatility and periodic dilution.

Bear case

Technical milestones slip, practical applications take longer to materialise, and public-market valuations unwind before the industry reaches meaningful scale. Some companies may survive scientifically but fail as investments because they require too much capital or cannot build recurring revenue.

These are scenarios, not price targets or probability-weighted forecasts. The point is to acknowledge that the future is uncertain and that a long-term technology opportunity can still produce poor investment returns.

The GRABIT final take

Quantum computing could become one of the most important technology shifts of the coming decades. But the market is not waiting for certainty — it is already trying to price the winners years before the outcome is clear.

Our focus is on evidence: technical progress that can be independently validated, commercial demand that converts into revenue, balance sheets that can support the journey and valuations that leave room for reality to be less perfect than the story.

We are not treating all six companies as equal. IonQ stands out for current revenue scale among the pure-play names in this group. Infleqtion offers an alternative architecture worth watching. Rigetti remains a higher-risk hardware execution story. D-Wave has a differentiated commercial approach. QUBT has significant capital but must prove the quality and scalability of its quantum thesis. IBM is the established ecosystem benchmark, but not a pure-play quantum investment.

The strongest technical company, the strongest business and the best stock may be three different names.

That is the central question we want this report to help investors investigate.

THE QUANTUM RACE HAS STARTED. WHO WILL BUILD WHAT COMES NEXT?

This report is for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute investment advice, a recommendation to buy or sell securities, or a promise of future performance. Quantum computing is an early-stage sector with substantial technical, commercial, regulatory, financing and valuation risks. Figures and roadmaps can change. Always do your own research.