Quantinuum

Qubit counts as the company reports them. Our rankings use QubitBenchmark's checked results instead.

• Announced 99.9995% logical fidelity (about 5 errors per million operations) on Helios using a color code, described as 10x better than its own previous record Source
• Announced Helios: 99.921% two-qubit gate fidelity across 98 qubits; 48 error-corrected and 94 error-detected logical qubits Source

• Evaluating the performance of QEC primitives on quantum processors at large width and depth, Jülich Supercomputing Centre authors (J. A. Montanez-Barrera, Kristel Michielsen); arXiv preprint (2026-10-05). Very recent preprint, not yet peer reviewed; the per-device numbers were read from a trade-press summary, not from the paper itself.
• The Quantum Index Report 2026: Quantum Processor Benchmarking (chapter 10), MIT Initiative on the Digital Economy (with Accenture) (2026-10). Broad and well-sourced overview, but it compiles vendor-reported numbers rather than measuring them, and it says no independently verified universal metric exists.
• The Quantum Index Report 2026, MIT Initiative on the Digital Economy (MIT Sloan), in collaboration with Accenture (2026-10). Transparent, sourced and openly licensed data, but it measures activity (patents, funding, press releases) rather than how well the machines perform.
• IDC MarketScape: Worldwide Quantum Computing 2026 Vendor Assessment (IDC #US54125526), IDC (International Data Corporation); analyst Heather West, PhD (2026-06). Analyst judgement of commercial maturity and strategy, not of measured machine performance, and the full placement chart is behind a paywall. Our view of it comes from vendor-licensed excerpts and press releases.
• Metriq: A Collaborative Platform for Benchmarking Quantum Computers (Metriq Score scoreboard), Unitary Foundation (2026-03-09). Open, reproducible method run by a non-profit, but it covers only about a dozen cloud machines, a missing benchmark scores zero, the composite depends on the chosen baseline, and IBM both funds the work and tops the table.
• Comparative Analysis of Contemporary Quantum Computer Processors: Architectures, Performance, and Perspectives, IEEE Access (authors: M. Vukšić, J. Ćelić, A. Cuculić, University of Rijeka) (2026-03-05). Peer-reviewed, but the paper itself says Table 1 is 'a high-level comparative snapshot rather than a definitive ranking'. Its data is already dated, and some milestone dates should be checked against primary sources.
• Quantum Advantage Tracker, Community effort launched by IBM with Algorithmiq, Flatiron Institute and BlueQubit (15+ contributing organisations) (2026-02-23). Useful for showing which advantage claims survive classical challenge, but it is vendor-initiated, does not rank machines, and IBM's own blog reports a featured candidate later beaten by new classical methods.
• Quantum Benchmarking Initiative: Stage B Selection, DARPA (US Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency) (2025-11-06). An official list of who advanced, not a ranking; it partly rests on plans and roadmaps, and Stage C has since narrowed it (see darpa-qbi-stage-c-2026).
• Evaluating the performance of quantum processing units at large width and depth, Jülich Supercomputing Centre (Forschungszentrum Jülich) and Purdue University; arXiv preprint (2025-05-28). Careful, independent academic study using one workload; it is a 2025 snapshot that predates newer machines, and the access budgets differed by vendor.