- 1. Overview
- 2. Etymology
- 3. Cultural Impact
This article, while attempting to catalog the burgeoning field of quantum processors, suffers from an overreliance on what appear to be primary sources. It’s like trying to understand a complex equation by only looking at the raw data without the benefit of a seasoned mathematician’s interpretation. To truly grasp the nuances, we need the clarity of secondary or tertiary analyses, the kind that distill decades of research into digestible insights. It’s a foundational piece, certainly, but one that feels… incomplete.
List of Quantum Processors
This compilation aims to enumerate the various quantum processors , often referred to as quantum processing units (QPUs). It’s important to note that some of these devices have only been revealed through press conferences, lacking the rigorous scientific publications and actual demonstrations that would fully characterize their performance. This makes direct comparisons akin to comparing apples and… well, something far more complex and abstract.
The inherent diversity in architectures and technological approaches makes comparing quantum processors a formidable task. The raw number of physical qubits is a number, yes, but it’s hardly the full story. Performance is a far more intricate metric, often better reflected by the count of logical qubits or through established benchmarking metrics such as quantum volume , randomized benchmarking , or the throughput measured in circuit layer operations per second (CLOPS). Relying solely on physical qubit counts is like judging a symphony by the number of instruments rather than the music itself.
Circuit-Based Quantum Processors
These QPUs operate on the principles of the quantum circuit model, employing quantum logic gates to perform computations, a direct descendant of the classical model of computation .
| Manufacturer | Name/Codename/Designation | Architecture | Layout | Fidelity (%) | Qubits (physical) | Release Date | Quantum Volume |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Alpine Quantum Technologies | PINE System | Trapped ion | 24 | June 7, 2021 | 128 | ||
| Atom Computing | Phoenix | Neutral atoms in optical lattices | 100 | August 10, 2021 | |||
| Atom Computing | — | Neutral atoms in optical lattices | 35×35 lattice (with 45 vacancies) | < 99.5 (2 qubits) | 1180 | October 2023 | |
| CAS | Xiaohong | Superconducting | — | — | 504 | 2024 | |
| — | Superconducting | — | 99.5 | 20 | 2017 | ||
| — | Superconducting | 7×7 lattice | 99.7 | 49 | Q4 2017 (planned) | ||
| Bristlecone | Superconducting transmon | 6×12 lattice | 99 (readout), 99.9 (1 qubit), 99.4 (2 qubits) | 72 | March 5, 2018 | ||
| Sycamore | Superconducting transmon | 9×6 lattice | — | 53 effective (54 total) | 2019 | ||
| Willow | Superconducting transmon | Rotated rectangular lattice | 99.965% (1-qubit), 99.67% (2-qubit) | 105 | December 9, 2024 | ||
| IBM | IBM Q 5 Tenerife | Superconducting | Bow tie | 99.897 (average gate), 98.64 (readout) | 5 | 2016 | |
| IBM | IBM Q 5 Yorktown | Superconducting | Bow tie | 99.545 (average gate), 94.2 (readout) | 5 | ||
| IBM | IBM Q 14 Melbourne | Superconducting | — | 99.735 (average gate), 97.13 (readout) | 14 | ||
| IBM | IBM Q 16 Rüschlikon | Superconducting | 2×8 lattice | 99.779 (average gate), 94.24 (readout) | 16 | May 17, 2017 | |
| IBM | IBM Q 17 | Superconducting | — | — | 17 | May 17, 2017 | |
| IBM | IBM Q 20 Tokyo | Superconducting | 5×4 lattice | 99.812 (average gate), 93.21 (readout) | 20 | November 10, 2017 | |
| IBM | IBM Q 20 Austin | Superconducting | 5×4 lattice | — | 20 | (Retired: 4 July 2018) | |
| IBM | IBM Q 50 prototype | Superconducting transmon | — | — | 50 | ||
| IBM | IBM Q 53 | Superconducting | — | — | 53 | October 2019 | |
| IBM | IBM Eagle | Superconducting transmon | — | — | 127 | November 2021 | |
| IBM | IBM Osprey | Superconducting | — | — | 433 | November 2022 | |
| IBM | IBM Condor | Superconducting | Honeycomb | — | 1121 | December 2023 | |
| IBM | IBM Heron | Superconducting | — | — | 133 | December 2023 | |
| IBM | IBM Heron R2 | Superconducting | Heavy hex | 96.5 (2 qubits) | 156 | November 2024 | |
| IBM | IBM Nighthawk | 120 | December 2025 | ||||
| IBM | IBM Armonk | Superconducting | Single Qubit | — | 1 | October 16, 2019 | |
| IBM | IBM Ourense | Superconducting | T | — | 5 | July 3, 2019 | |
| IBM | IBM Vigo | Superconducting | T | — | 5 | July 3, 2019 | |
| IBM | IBM London | Superconducting | T | — | 5 | September 13, 2019 | |
| IBM | IBM Burlington | Superconducting | T | — | 5 | September 13, 2019 | |
| IBM | IBM Essex | Superconducting | T | — | 5 | September 13, 2019 | |
| IBM | IBM Athens | Superconducting | — | 5 | 32 | ||
| IBM | IBM Belem | Superconducting | Falcon r4T | — | 5 | 16 | |
| IBM | IBM Bogotá | Superconducting | Falcon r4L | — | 5 | 32 | |
| IBM | IBM Casablanca | Superconducting | Falcon r4H | — | 7 | (Retired – March 2022) | 32 |
| IBM | IBM Dublin | Superconducting | — | 27 | 64 | ||
| IBM | IBM Guadalupe | Superconducting | Falcon r4P | — | 16 | 32 | |
| IBM | IBM Kolkata | Superconducting | — | 27 | 128 | ||
| IBM | IBM Lima | Superconducting | Falcon r4T | — | 5 | 8 | |
| IBM | IBM Manhattan | Superconducting | — | 65 | 32 | ||
| IBM | IBM Montreal | Superconducting | Falcon r4 | — | 27 | 128 | |
| IBM | IBM Mumbai | Superconducting | Falcon r5.1 | — | 27 | 128 | |
| IBM | IBM Paris | Superconducting | — | 27 | 32 | ||
| IBM | IBM Quito | Superconducting | Falcon r4T | — | 5 | 16 | |
| IBM | IBM Rome | Superconducting | — | 5 | 32 | ||
| IBM | IBM Santiago | Superconducting | — | 5 | 32 | ||
| IBM | IBM Sydney | Superconducting | Falcon r4 | — | 27 | 32 | |
| IBM | IBM Toronto | Superconducting | Falcon r4 | — | 27 | 32 | |
| Intel | 17-Qubit Superconducting Test Chip | Superconducting | 40-pin cross gap | — | 17 | October 10, 2017 | |
| Intel | Tangle Lake | Superconducting | 108-pin cross gap | — | 49 | January 9, 2018 | |
| Intel | Tunnel Falls | Semiconductor spin qubits | 12 | June 15, 2023 | |||
| IonQ | Harmony | Trapped ion | All-to-All | 99.73 (1 qubit), 90.02 (2 qubit), 99.30 ( SPAM ) | 11 | 2022 | 8 |
| IonQ | Aria | Trapped ion | All-to-All | 99.97 (1 qubit), 98.33 (2 qubit), 98.94 ( SPAM ) | 25 | 2022 | |
| IonQ | Forte | Trapped ion | 366x1 chain, All-to-All | 99.98 (1 qubit), 98.5–99.3 (2 qubit), 99.56 ( SPAM ) | 36 (earlier 32) | 2022 | |
| IQM | - | Superconducting | Star | 99.91 (1 qubit), 99.14 (2 qubits) | 5 | November 30, 2021 | — |
| IQM | - | Superconducting | Square lattice | 99.91 (1 qubit median), 99.944 (1 qubit max), 98.25 (2 qubits median), 99.1 (2 qubits max) | 20 | October 9, 2023 | 16 |
| M Squared Lasers | Maxwell | Neutral atoms in optical lattices | 99.5 (3-qubit gate), 99.1 (4-qubit gate) | 200 | November 2022 | ||
| Oxford Quantum Circuits | Lucy | Superconducting | 8 | 2022 | |||
| Oxford Quantum Circuits | OQC Toshiko | Superconducting (Coaxmon) | 32 | 2023 | |||
| Quandela | Ascella | Photonics | — | 99.6 (1 qubit), 93.8 (2 qubits), 86.0 (3 qubits) | 6 | 2022 | |
| QuTech at TU Delft | Spin-2 | Semiconductor spin qubits | 99 (average gate), 85 (readout) | 2 | 2020 | ||
| QuTech at TU Delft | - | Semiconductor spin qubits | 6 | September 2022 | |||
| QuTech at TU Delft | Starmon-5 | Superconducting | X configuration | 97 (readout) | 5 | 2020 | |
| Quantinuum | H2 | Trapped ion | Racetrack, All-to-All | 99.997 (1 qubit), 99.87 (2 qubit) | 56 (earlier 32) | May 9, 2023 | 8,388,608 |
| Quantinuum | H1-1 | Trapped ion | 15×15 (Circuit Size) | 99.996 (1 qubit), 99.914 (2 qubit) | 20 | 2022 | 1,048,576 |
| Quantinuum | H1-2 | Trapped ion | All-to-All | 99.996 (1 qubit), 99.7 (2 qubit) | 12 | 2022 | 4096 |
| Quantware | Soprano | Superconducting | 99.9 (single-qubit gates) | 5 | July 2021 | ||
| Quantware | Contralto | Superconducting | 99.9 (single-qubit gates) | 25 | March 7, 2022 | ||
| Quantware | Tenor | Superconducting | 64 | February 23, 2023 | |||
| Rigetti | Agave | Superconducting | — | 96 (Single-qubit gates), 87 (Two-qubit gates) | 8 | June 4, 2018 | |
| Rigetti | Acorn | Superconducting transmon | — | 98.63 (Single-qubit gates), 87.5 (Two-qubit gates) | 19 | December 17, 2017 | |
| Rigetti | Aspen-1 | Superconducting | — | 93.23 (Single-qubit gates), 90.84 (Two-qubit gates) | 16 | November 30, 2018 | |
| Rigetti | Aspen-4 | Superconducting | 99.88 (Single-qubit gates), 94.42 (Two-qubit gates) | 13 | March 10, 2019 | ||
| Rigetti | Aspen-7 | Superconducting | 99.23 (Single-qubit gates), 95.2 (Two-qubit gates) | 28 | November 15, 2019 | ||
| Rigetti | Aspen-8 | Superconducting | 99.22 (Single-qubit gates), 94.34 (Two-qubit gates) | 31 | May 5, 2020 | ||
| Rigetti | Aspen-9 | Superconducting | 99.39 (Single-qubit gates), 94.28 (Two-qubit gates) | 32 | February 6, 2021 | ||
| Rigetti | Aspen-10 | Superconducting | 99.37 (Single-qubit gates), 94.66 (Two-qubit gates) | 32 | November 4, 2021 | ||
| Rigetti | Aspen-11 | Superconducting | Octagonal | 99.8 (Single-qubit gates), 92.7 (Two-qubit gates CZ), 91.0 (Two-qubit gates XY) | 40 | December 15, 2021 | |
| Rigetti | Aspen-M-1 | Superconducting transmon | Octagonal | 99.8 (Single-qubit gates), 93.7 (Two-qubit gates CZ), 94.6 (Two-qubit gates XY) | 80 | February 15, 2022 | 8 |
| Rigetti | Aspen-M-2 | Superconducting transmon | 99.8 (Single-qubit gates), 91.3 (Two-qubit gates CZ), 90.0 (Two-qubit gates XY) | 80 | August 1, 2022 | ||
| Rigetti | Aspen-M-3 | Superconducting transmon | — | 99.9 (Single-qubit gates), 94.7 (Two-qubit gates CZ), 95.1 (Two-qubit gates XY) | 80 | December 2, 2022 | |
| Rigetti | Ankaa-2 | Superconducting transmon | — | 98 (Two-qubit gates) | 84 | December 20, 2023 | |
| RIKEN | RIKEN | Superconducting | — | — | 53 effective (64 total) | March 27, 2023 | — |
| SaxonQ | Princess | Nitrogen-vacancy center | 4 | June 26, 2024 | |||
| SaxonQ | Princess+ | Nitrogen-vacancy center | 4 | June 12, 2025 | |||
| SpinQ | Triangulum | Nuclear magnetic resonance | 3 | September 2021 | |||
| USTC | Jiuzhang | Photonics | — | — | 76 | 2020 | |
| USTC | Zuchongzhi | Superconducting | — | — | 62 | 2020 | |
| USTC | Zuchongzhi 2.1 | Superconducting | lattice | 99.86 (Single-qubit gates), 99.41 (Two-qubit gates), 95.48 (Readout) | 66 | 2021 | |
| USTC | Zuchongzhi 3.0 | Superconducting transmon | 15 x 7 | 99.90 (Single-qubit gates), 99.62 (Two-qubit gates), 99.18 (Readout) | 105 | December 16, 2024 | |
| Xanadu | Borealis | Photonics (Continuous-variable) | — | — | 216 | 2022 | |
| Xanadu | X8 | Photonics (Continuous-variable) | — | — | 8 | 2020 | |
| Xanadu | X12 | Photonics (Continuous-variable) | — | — | 12 | 2020 | |
| Xanadu | X24 | Photonics (Continuous-variable) | — | — | 24 | 2020 |
Annealing Quantum Processors
These QPUs operate via quantum annealing , a distinct paradigm from digital annealing, focusing on finding the ground state of a Hamiltonian.
| Manufacturer | Name/Codename/Designation | Architecture | Layout | Fidelity (%) | Qubits | Release Date |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| D-Wave | D-Wave One (Rainier) | Superconducting | C 4 = Chimera(4,4,4) | — | 128 | May 11, 2011 |
| D-Wave | D-Wave Two | Superconducting | C 8 = Chimera(8,8,4) | — | 512 | 2013 |
| D-Wave | D-Wave 2X | Superconducting | C 12 = Chimera(12,12,4) | — | 1152 | 2015 |
| D-Wave | D-Wave 2000Q | Superconducting | C 16 = Chimera(16,16,4) | — | 2000 | 2017 |
| D-Wave | D-Wave Advantage | Superconducting | Pegasus P 16 | — | 5000 | 2020 |
| D-Wave | D-Wave Advantage 2 | Superconducting | Zephyr Z 15 | — | 4400 | 2025 |
Analog Quantum Processors
These QPUs are designed for analog Hamiltonian simulation, a more direct mapping of physical systems.
| Manufacturer | Name/Codename/Designation | Architecture | Layout | Fidelity (%) | Qubits | Release Date |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| QuEra | Aquila | Neutral atoms | — | — | 256 | November 2022 |