List of quantum processors
In-game article clicks load inline without leaving the challenge.
This list contains quantum processors, also known as quantum processing units (QPUs). Some devices listed below have only been announced at press conferences so far, with no actual demonstrations or scientific publications characterizing the performance.
Quantum processors are difficult to compare due to the different architectures and approaches. Due to this, published physical qubit numbers do not reflect the performance levels of the processor. This is instead achieved through the number of logical qubits or benchmarking metrics such as quantum volume, randomized benchmarking or circuit layer operations per second (CLOPS).
Circuit-based quantum processors
These QPUs are based on the quantum circuit and quantum logic gate-based model of computing.
| 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 | —N/a | Neutral atoms in optical lattices | 35×35 lattice (with 45 vacancies) | < 99.5 (2 qubits) | 1180 | October 2023 | |
| CAS | Xiaohong | Superconducting | —N/a | —N/a | 504 | 2024 | |
| —N/a | Superconducting | —N/a | 99.5 | 20 | 2017 | ||
| —N/a | 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 | —N/a | 53 effective (54 total) | 2019 | ||
| Willow | Superconducting transmon | rotated rectangular lattice (see ) | 99.965% (1-qubit), 99.67% (2-qubit), surface code error correction implemented | 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 | —N/a | 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 (Retired: 26 September 2018) | |
| IBM | IBM Q 17 | Superconducting | —N/a | —N/a | 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 | —N/a | 20 | (Retired: 4 July 2018) | |
| IBM | IBM Q 50 prototype | Superconducting transmon | —N/a | —N/a | 50 | ||
| IBM | IBM Q 53 | Superconducting | —N/a | —N/a | 53 | October 2019 | |
| IBM | IBM Eagle | Superconducting transmon | —N/a | —N/a | 127 | November 2021 | |
| IBM | IBM Osprey | Superconducting | —N/a | —N/a | 433 | November 2022 | |
| IBM | IBM Condor | Superconducting | Honeycomb | —N/a | 1121 | December 2023 | |
| IBM | IBM Heron | Superconducting | —N/a | —N/a | 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 Ourense | Superconducting | T | —N/a | 5 | July 3, 2019 | |
| IBM | IBM Vigo | Superconducting | T | —N/a | 5 | July 3, 2019 | |
| IBM | IBM London | Superconducting | T | —N/a | 5 | September 13, 2019 | |
| IBM | IBM Burlington | Superconducting | T | —N/a | 5 | September 13, 2019 | |
| IBM | IBM Essex | Superconducting | T | —N/a | 5 | September 13, 2019 | |
| IBM | IBM Armonk | Superconducting | Single Qubit | —N/a | 1 | October 16, 2019 | |
| IBM | IBM Athens | Superconducting | —N/a | 5 | 32 | ||
| IBM | IBM Belem | Superconducting | Falcon r4T | —N/a | 5 | 16 | |
| IBM | IBM Bogotá | Superconducting | Falcon r4L | —N/a | 5 | 32 | |
| IBM | IBM Casablanca | Superconducting | Falcon r4H | —N/a | 7 | (Retired – March 2022) | 32 |
| IBM | IBM Dublin | Superconducting | —N/a | 27 | 64 | ||
| IBM | IBM Guadalupe | Superconducting | Falcon r4P | —N/a | 16 | 32 | |
| IBM | IBM Kolkata | Superconducting | —N/a | 27 | 128 | ||
| IBM | IBM Lima | Superconducting | Falcon r4T | —N/a | 5 | 8 | |
| IBM | IBM Manhattan | Superconducting | —N/a | 65 | 32 | ||
| IBM | IBM Montreal | Superconducting | Falcon r4 | —N/a | 27 | 128 | |
| IBM | IBM Mumbai | Superconducting | Falcon r5.1 | —N/a | 27 | 128 | |
| IBM | IBM Paris | Superconducting | —N/a | 27 | 32 | ||
| IBM | IBM Quito | Superconducting | Falcon r4T | —N/a | 5 | 16 | |
| IBM | IBM Rome | Superconducting | —N/a | 5 | 32 | ||
| IBM | IBM Santiago | Superconducting | —N/a | 5 | 32 | ||
| IBM | IBM Sydney | Superconducting | Falcon r4 | —N/a | 27 | 32 | |
| IBM | IBM Toronto | Superconducting | Falcon r4 | —N/a | 27 | 32 | |
| Intel | 17-Qubit Superconducting Test Chip | Superconducting | 40-pin cross gap | —N/a | 17 | October 10, 2017 | |
| Intel | Tangle Lake | Superconducting | 108-pin cross gap | —N/a | 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 | —N/a |
| 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 | Photonics | —N/a | 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 | Starmon-5 | Superconducting | X configuration | 97 (readout) | 5 | 2020 | |
| QuTech at TU Delft | - | Semiconductor spin qubits | 6 | September 2022 | |||
| Quantinuum | Helios | Trapped ion | Storage ring and legs | 99.9975 (1 qubit), 99.921 (2 qubit) | 98 | November 2025 | |
| 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 (1 qubit gates) | 5 | July 2021 | ||
| Quantware | Contralto | Superconducting | 99.9 (1-qubit gates) | 25 | March 7, 2022 | ||
| Quantware | Tenor | Superconducting | 64 | February 23, 2023 | |||
| Rigetti | Acorn | Superconducting transmon | —N/a | 98.63 (1 qubit gates), 87.5 (2 qubit gates) | 19 | December 17, 2017 | |
| Rigetti | Agave | Superconducting | —N/a | 96 (1 qubit gates), 87 (2 qubit gates) | 8 | June 4, 2018 | |
| Rigetti | Aspen-1 | Superconducting | —N/a | 93.23 (1 qubit gates), 90.84 (2 qubit gates) | 16 | November 30, 2018 | |
| Rigetti | Aspen-4 | Superconducting | 99.88 (1 qubit gates), 94.42 (2 qubit gates) | 13 | March 10, 2019 | ||
| Rigetti | Aspen-7 | Superconducting | 99.23 (1 qubit gates), 95.2 (2 qubit gates) | 28 | November 15, 2019 | ||
| Rigetti | Aspen-8 | Superconducting | 99.22 (1 qubit gates), 94.34 (2 qubit gates) | 31 | May 5, 2020 | ||
| Rigetti | Aspen-9 | Superconducting | 99.39 (1 qubit gates), 94.28 (2 qubit gates) | 32 | February 6, 2021 | ||
| Rigetti | Aspen-10 | Superconducting | 99.37 (1 qubit gates), 94.66 (2 qubit gates) | 32 | November 4, 2021 | ||
| Rigetti | Aspen-11 | Superconducting | Octagonal | 99.8 (1 qubit gates), 92.7 (2 qubit gates CZ), 91.0 (2 qubit gates XY) | 40 | December 15, 2021 | |
| Rigetti | Aspen-M-1 | Superconducting transmon | Octagonal | 99.8 (1 qubit gates), 93.7 (2 qubit gates CZ) 94.6 (2 qubit gates XY) | 80 | February 15, 2022 | 8 |
| Rigetti | Aspen-M-2 | Superconducting transmon | 99.8 (1 qubit gates), 91.3 (2 qubit gates CZ), 90.0 (2 qubit gates XY) | 80 | August 1, 2022 | ||
| Rigetti | Aspen-M-3 | Superconducting transmon | —N/a | 99.9 (1 qubit gates), 94.7 (2 qubit gates CZ), 95.1 (2 qubit gates XY) | 80 | December 2, 2022 | |
| Rigetti | Ankaa-2 | Superconducting transmon | —N/a | 98 (2 qubit gates) | 84 | December 20, 2023 | |
| Rigetti | Ankaa-3 | Superconduting transmon | 99.91 (1 qubit gates), 98.6 (2 qubit gates) | 82 | December 23, 2024 | ||
| Rigetti | Cepheus-1-108Q | Superconduting transmon | 99.54 (1 qubit gates), 98.97 (2 qubit gates CZ) | 108 | April 7, 2026 | ||
| RIKEN | RIKEN | Superconducting | —N/a | —N/a | 53 effective (64 total) | March 27, 2023 | —N/a |
| 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 | —N/a | —N/a | 76 | 2020 | |
| USTC | Zuchongzhi | Superconducting | —N/a | —N/a | 62 | 2020 | |
| USTC | Zuchongzhi 2.1 | Superconducting | lattice | 99.86 (1 qubit gates), 99.41 (2 qubit gates), 95.48 (Readout) | 66 | 2021 | |
| USTC | Zuchongzhi 3.0 | Superconducting transmon | 15 x 7 | 99.90 (1 qubit gates), 99.62 (2 qubit gates), 99.18 (Readout) | 105 | December 16, 2024 | |
| Xanadu | Borealis | Photonics (Continuous-variable) | —N/a | —N/a | 216 | 2022 | |
| Xanadu | X8 | Photonics (Continuous-variable) | —N/a | —N/a | 8 | 2020 | |
| Xanadu | X12 | Photonics (Continuous-variable) | —N/a | —N/a | 12 | 2020 | |
| Xanadu | X24 | Photonics (Continuous-variable) | —N/a | —N/a | 24 | 2020 |
Annealing quantum processors
These QPUs are based on quantum annealing, not to be confused with digital annealing.
| Manufacturer | Name/Codename /Designation | Architecture | Layout | Fidelity (%) | Qubits | Release date |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| D-Wave | D-Wave One (Rainier) | Superconducting | C4 = Chimera(4,4,4) = 4×4 K4,4 | —N/a | 128 | May 11, 2011 |
| D-Wave | D-Wave Two | Superconducting | C8 = Chimera(8,8,4) = 8×8 K4,4 | —N/a | 512 | 2013 |
| D-Wave | D-Wave 2X | Superconducting | C12 = Chimera(12,12,4) = 12×12 K4,4 | —N/a | 1152 | 2015 |
| D-Wave | D-Wave 2000Q | Superconducting | C16 = Chimera(16,16,4) = 16×16 K4,4 | —N/a | 2000 | 2017 |
| D-Wave | D-Wave Advantage | Superconducting | Pegasus P16 | —N/a | 5000 | 2020 |
| D-Wave | D-Wave Advantage 2 | Superconducting | Zephyr Z15 | —N/a | 4400 | 2025 |
Analog quantum processors
These QPUs are based on analog Hamiltonian simulation.
| Manufacturer | Name/Codename/Designation | Architecture | Layout | Fidelity (%) | Qubits | Release date |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| QuEra | Aquila | Neutral atoms | —N/a | —N/a | 256 | November 2022 |