Quantum breakthroughs. Beyond the headlines.

First edition · November 2026 · Rankings updated monthly Data: QubitBenchmark release 2026-11.1
Leaders
Most accurate: Helios (Quantinuum) · not ranked last month Error-corrected qubits: Helios (Quantinuum) · not ranked last month Most qubits: Ytterbium atom array (Atom Computing) · not ranked last month Fastest: Nighthawk r2 (IBM) · not ranked last month Use it today: Nighthawk r2 (IBM) · not ranked last month
Executive briefing · November 2026

Who's winning the quantum race? Depends which race.

Quantum breakthroughs. Beyond the headlines. 5 races, ranked on published evidence. Here's what changed this month.

  1. Accuracy: Quantinuum's Helios leads, and trapped-ion machines take two of the top three places.
  2. Error correction: an independent study from Germany's Jülich centre puts Quantinuum ahead of IBM on the building blocks of error correction.
  3. Roadmaps: DARPA has moved IBM, IonQ, Atom Computing and Diraq into the final stage of its review of who can build a useful machine.
  4. Advantage: one of IBM's three "quantum advantage" experiments has been reproduced on ordinary computers.
  5. Reality Check: Microsoft's topological qubits: an ambitious idea, but not yet shown.

State of the race Data release 2026-11.1

Most accurateTwo-qubit gate fidelity
Helios Quantinuum
Helios99.92%
H299.84%
Willow99.67%
Error-corrected qubitsLogical qubits demonstrated
Helios Quantinuum
Helios48
Most qubitsPhysical qubits, gate-based machines
Ytterbium atom array Atom Computing
Ytterbium atom array256
Nighthawk r2120
Willow105
FastestCircuit layer operations per second
Nighthawk r2 IBM
Nighthawk r22,000,000
Heron r3340,000
See every category →

Who leads where

One glance: each company's best place in each race.

Company profiles →
Each company's best rank in each category
CompanyMost accurateError-corrected qubitsMost qubitsFastestUse it today
IBM – – 2 1 1
Quantinuum 1 1 5 – 2
Atom Computing – – 1 – –
Google 3 – 3 – –
IonQ – – 4 – –
QuEra Computing 4 – – – –
1 Leads2 Top three6 Ranked– No ranked result yet

Reality Check

The month's biggest claim, held up against the evidence.

All Reality Checks →
Error correction

Microsoft's Majorana chips: has it built a topological qubit?

Microsoft says its Majorana chips use a new kind of qubit that resists errors by design, and that a scalable machine could arrive by 2029. The underlying physics is still disputed, and no working topological qubit operations have been published.

  1. Announced
  2. Published
  3. Peer-reviewed
  4. Repeated
  5. Useful
Verdict: Not yet shown. An ambitious idea with real progress, but the key claim is disputed.
The claim
Microsoft says Majorana 1 (2025) is the first chip with a "topological core" of eight qubits, and that Majorana 2 (2026) is a thousand times more reliable and brings a scalable quantum computer forward to 2029.
What was shown
A peer-reviewed measurement (Nature, February 2025) of the property such qubits would store, made on Microsoft's devices, and a preprint (June 2026) showing that property lasting about 20 seconds in one wire.
What it doesn't show
That the devices contain the Majorana states the whole approach depends on. Nature's editors wrote that the 2025 paper isn't evidence of them. No operations on topological qubits, or links between them, have been published.
Why it matters
If topological qubits work, they could need far less error correction than any other approach: a genuine shortcut. That's why the claim matters, and why it needs strong evidence.

Movers

This is the first ranking. Movement shows from next month.

Breaking

All news →
  1. Published

    MIT's Quantum Index Report 2026 compares about 300 quantum processors

  2. Announced

    Quantinuum reports a tenfold improvement in error-corrected accuracy on Helios

  3. Official decision

    DARPA moves IBM, IonQ, Atom Computing and Diraq into the final stage of its quantum test

  4. Preprint

    Independent study finds Quantinuum ahead of IBM on error-correction building blocks

The full board

Pick a race. Every rank links to its evidence.

All rankings →

Most accurate

Two-qubit gate fidelity. Ranked on grade A and B evidence only. Data: QubitBenchmark release 2026-11.1.
#MoveMachineTypeResultGradeMeasuredEvidence
1· not ranked last month HeliosQuantinuum Trapped ion 99.92 % B Jun 2026 Evidence →
2· not ranked last month H2Quantinuum Trapped ion 99.84 % B 2025 Evidence →
3· not ranked last month WillowGoogle Superconducting 99.67 % B Dec 2024 Evidence →
4· not ranked last month Harvard–MIT rubidium atom arrayQuEra Computing Neutral atom 99.54 % B Oct 2023 Evidence →

Error-corrected qubits

Logical qubits demonstrated. Ranked on grade A and B evidence only. Data: QubitBenchmark release 2026-11.1.
#MoveMachineTypeResultGradeMeasuredEvidence
1· not ranked last month HeliosQuantinuum Trapped ion 48 logical qubits B Feb 2026 Evidence →

Most qubits

Physical qubits, gate-based machines. Ranked on grade A and B evidence only. Data: QubitBenchmark release 2026-11.1.
#MoveMachineTypeResultGradeMeasuredEvidence
1· not ranked last month Ytterbium atom arrayAtom Computing Neutral atom 256 qubits B Nov 2024 Evidence →
2· not ranked last month Nighthawk r2IBM Superconducting 120 qubits B Aug 2026 Evidence →
3· not ranked last month WillowGoogle Superconducting 105 qubits B Dec 2024 Evidence →
4· not ranked last month TempoIonQ Trapped ion 100 qubits B Evidence →
5· not ranked last month HeliosQuantinuum Trapped ion 98 qubits B Jun 2026 Evidence →
6· not ranked last month H2Quantinuum Trapped ion 56 qubits B 2025 Evidence →

Fastest

Circuit layer operations per second. Ranked on grade A and B evidence only. Data: QubitBenchmark release 2026-11.1.
#MoveMachineTypeResultGradeMeasuredEvidence
1· not ranked last month Nighthawk r2IBM Superconducting 2,000,000 layers per second B Evidence →
2· not ranked last month Heron r3IBM Superconducting 340,000 layers per second B Evidence →

Use it today

Largest machine on a public cloud. Ranked on grade A and B evidence only. Data: QubitBenchmark release 2026-11.1.
#MoveMachineTypeResultGradeMeasuredEvidence
1· not ranked last month Nighthawk r2IBM Superconducting 120 qubits B Aug 2026 Evidence →
2· not ranked last month HeliosQuantinuum Trapped ion 98 qubits B Jun 2026 Evidence →
3· not ranked last month H2Quantinuum Trapped ion 56 qubits B 2025 Evidence →

How others rank them

Other organisations' leaderboards and lists, credited and summed up. They never change our ranks.

All of them →
DARPA (US Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency) · 2026-10-07

Four more teams enter Quantum Benchmarking Initiative final stage (QBI Stage C)

Ranks: companies

DARPA's QBI tests whether a company's plan for a useful, fault-tolerant quantum computer could be built and run as intended by 2033. Companies pass through Stage A (a concept), Stage B (a year-long review of R&D plans and risk-reduction prototypes) and Stage C, where a government evaluation team tests whether the proposed utility-scale system works as designed. Selections are announced on staggered timelines, and DARPA expects more teams to advance.

  1. Atom Computing, entered Stage C (neutral atoms)
  2. Diraq, entered Stage C (silicon CMOS spin qubits)
  3. IBM, entered Stage C (modular superconducting)
  4. IonQ, entered Stage C (trapped ions)
  5. Microsoft and PsiQuantum, already in the equivalent final phase via the US2QC pilot (6 teams in total)
Who's behind it
Run by a US government agency with a government verification team. Participants are vendors in a government programme, not submitters to a public leaderboard. DARPA says QBI is not meant to pick a few winners, and that each approach is judged on its own merits.
How much weight to give it
An authoritative government selection, but it assesses plans and their feasibility, not measured performance, and the October 2026 announcement says nothing about the other seven Stage B companies.

Free · Read it at DARPA (US Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency) →

Jülich Supercomputing Centre authors (J. A. Montanez-Barrera, Kristel Michielsen); arXiv preprint · 2026-10-05

Evaluating the performance of QEC primitives on quantum processors at large width and depth

Ranks: machines

The authors built a low-shot test of the building blocks that error correction needs: parity extraction, mid-circuit measurement, reset, feed-forward and scheduling. They ran it on 10 commercial processors from Quantinuum, IBM and IQM, including circuits shaped like surface codes, colour codes and qLDPC codes. Signal decay is converted into an effective hardware error rate so the machines can be compared. On ibm_phoenix the score correlated with a real logical-memory experiment.

  1. Quantinuum (Helios-1, H2-1), best overall across tested QEC primitives (effective hardware error), λeff about 0.22% to 0.49% (IBM about 1.1% to 3.2%)
  2. Quantinuum Helios, hardware error vs top superconducting processors tested, about 13x lower at 30 data qubits; about 8x lower at 50 data qubits
  3. Quantinuum, 91-data-qubit triangular colour code signal, r = 0.733
Who's behind it
Academic (Jülich) authors and no vendor co-authors listed on the abstract page. Funding and hardware access are not described in the pages opened. Quantum Computing Report's article links to a Quantinuum blog post about the result.
How much weight to give it
Very recent preprint, not yet peer reviewed; the per-device numbers were read from a trade-press summary, not from the paper itself.

Free · Read it at Jülich Supercomputing Centre authors (J. A. Montanez-Barrera, Kristel Michielsen); arXiv preprint →

MIT Initiative on the Digital Economy (with Accenture) · 2026-10

The Quantum Index Report 2026: Quantum Processor Benchmarking (chapter 10)

Ranks: machines

MIT compiles a dataset of about 300 quantum processors (235 unique products, 56 commercially available from 24 manufacturers) from manufacturer announcements, public datasets, web searches and direct queries to providers. It charts physical metrics (qubit count, gate fidelities, coherence, gate speed), aggregate metrics (Quantum Volume, logical qubits) and the rare application benchmarks, by device and by modality. The report is annual. It does not run any tests itself.

  1. Trapped ions (modality best), 2-qubit gate fidelity, 99.92%
  2. IBM Heron r2 – Fez, 2-qubit gate fidelity, single device shown on chart, 99.70%
  3. IQM Garnet, fastest published 2-qubit gate, 48 ns
  4. Rigetti Cepheus-1-108Q, 2-qubit gate speed (second), 60 ns
  5. IBM Condor (2023), qubit count, superconducting, 1,121
Who's behind it
Academic team at MIT IDE in collaboration with Accenture, supported by an NSF Engineering Research Centers grant. The data is mostly self-reported by vendors, and the report itself warns that vendors highlight favourable metrics under differing definitions.
How much weight to give it
Broad and well-sourced overview, but it compiles vendor-reported numbers rather than measuring them, and it says no independently verified universal metric exists.

Free · Read it at MIT Initiative on the Digital Economy (with Accenture) →

How far has it really come?

Stages: idea → lab demo → repeated → routine. No countdowns, no made-up percentages.

Error correction that works better as it grows

Shown by several teams, including Google and Harvard with QuEra. Not routine yet.

Error-corrected qubits

Up to 48 at once in a lab, for short runs.

Beating classical computers

Only on narrow test tasks, and some claims have been matched classically.

Topological qubits

Claimed, but disputed. Not yet shown.

Breaking today's encryption

Far beyond any machine that exists.

Promises kept

What each company said it would build, and what it has delivered.

All roadmaps →
Atom ComputingCommercial logical-qubit machine (Atom...Magne: Level 2 system with 50 logical...Utility-scale fault-tolerant system...0 of 4 delivered
D-Wave100-logical-qubit gate-model system (>1... · 2032Advantage3: intermediate 20,000-qubit... · 2029100,000-qubit annealing system · 20310 of 8 delivered, 1 slipped
Google Quantum AIMilestone 3: long-lived logical qubitUseful, error-corrected quantum computer · 2029Neutral-atom programme: demonstrate deep...3 of 6 delivered
IBMCockatoo: entanglement between modules... · 2027Starling: fault-tolerant system, 200... · 2029Blue Jay: 2,000 logical qubits running 1... · 20335 of 11 delivered, 1 slipped

Compare

Side by side, and honest when two machines can't be compared.

All comparisons →

Can quantum do this yet?

Straight answers.

Break the encryption banks use?Not yet
Discover new drugs?Research stage
Beat a supercomputer?Narrow cases
Speed up logistics or finance?Unproven

Want the raw numbers? Every result we rank is on QubitBenchmark, with its source, date and grade.

Open the evidence on QubitBenchmark →
Free · once a month

The QubitRank Monthly

The executive briefing in your inbox: who moved, what's real and what's next. Breaking news alerts only if you want them.