Quantum Brief/SOTA table
HARDWARE STATE OF THE ART

Quantum Hardware SOTA Table

Compare the best publicly disclosed metrics horizontally by technology route. Values are taken from vendor announcements and peer-reviewed papers, with credibility marked by evidence levels E1–E5; updated weekly with the weekly journal.

Data as of2026-08
Page updated2026-08-09
Routes5
Version2026H1
Version history / CSV export →
SOTA = best publicly reported result, not the industry median
00Anchors

Global anchors (cross-platform)

FieldSOTA anchorSource / grade
Two-qubit gate fidelity (best of any platform)99.99%(Trapped ions: IonQ 2025-10 EQC prototype; Oxford Ionics electron-controlled gate error 8.4×10-5; SQC silicon-based donor 2025-12 also reported 99.99%)E2–E3
Highest all-pair F2Q in a commercial system99.921%(Quantinuum Helios, 98 qubits all-to-all, all pairs)E2/E4
Error suppression factor Λ public gold standardΛ ≈ 2.1(Google Willow, surface code d=3→5→7)E2 (Nature 2024)
Highest verified logical qubits96 LQ(QuEra, [[16,6,4]] code, 448 physical qubits, Nature 2026)E2
Best physical-to-logical encoding ratio2:1(Quantinuum, concatenated code, 48 LQ / 98 PQ); comparison: QuEra ≈4.7:1, Atom Computing ≈49:1, Google surface code 105:1E2
Highest quantum volumeQV ≈ 33.5 M (≈225)(Quantinuum Helios)E4
01Superconducting

Superconducting (transmon / fluxonium)

MetricSOTA referenceRepresentative system / sourceGrade
F2Q (production system, median)99.5% – 99.9% (research devices >99.9%)IBM Heron r2, IQM Radiance, Rigetti Cepheus-1(108q @99.5%)E2–E4
F1Q≥ 99.95%cloud calibration data from leading vendorsE4
t2Q20 – 100 nsE2–E4
F_RO98% – 99.5%E4
T1~100 µs (Willow, ~5× improvement over Sycamore; leading devices 100–500 µs, note 2–3× TLS fluctuation)Google Willow (Nature 2024)E2
N_ops = T2echo/t2Q103 – 104Template §4.2
Physical qubits105 (Willow) / 120 (IBM Nighthawk, 218 tunable couplers, square lattice) / 1,121 (IBM Condor, no longer mainline)E2–E4
QECbelow-threshold surface code, Λ≈2.1, d=7; first demonstration of real-time error correction closed loopGoogle WillowE2
Assessment noteNighthawk takes the "fewer qubits–higher circuit complexity" route (circuit complexity +~30% over Heron); chips with >1000 qubits (Condor) have uncompetitive fidelity and must not receive bonus points for qubit count alone
02Trapped ion

Trapped ion

MetricSOTA referenceRepresentative system / sourceGrade
F2Q99.99%(Single pair, IonQ EQC prototype 2025-10; Oxford Ionics "smooth gate" error 8.4(7)×10-5, no ground-state cooling required, n̄≤9.4 still ≲5×10-4);99.921%(Commercial all-pair, Helios)arXiv 2510.17286;QuantinuumE2–E4
F1Q99.9975%(Helios)E4 (with accompanying arXiv paper → E3)
t2Q10 – 500 µsE2
F_RO / SPAM≥ 99.9%;Helios SPAM 99.99%E2–E4
T2seconds–minutes (clock state)E2
N_ops103 – 105Template §4.2
Physical qubits98 (Helios, Ba-137, QCCD + X junction + ring storage, all-to-all)E2–E4
QEC48 fully error-corrected LQs (2:1 concatenated code, single-shot correction, transversal logic) / 94 error-detection LQs with global entanglement / 50 LQ GHZ record; NVIDIA GB200 real-time decodingQuantinuumE2–E4
QV33.5 MQuantinuumE4
Assessment notePlatform common issue: qubit count in the tens to hundreds, repetition rate and ion transport overhead (IT-02) are scaling bottlenecks; IonQ AQ metric includes error mitigation, must be converted per template S-12
03Neutral atom

Neutral atom (Rydberg)

MetricSOTA referenceRepresentative system / sourceGrade
F2Q (CZ)99.5% (60 atoms in parallel, Harvard/Lukin, Nature 2023); commercial: Atom Computing 99.6%, QuEra/Pasqal ~99.5% (including active error suppression)Evered et al.; vendor disclosureE2 / E4
F1Q≥ 99.9% (production hardware)E4
t2Q~0.1 – 1 µsE2
F_RO97% – 99.5%E2–E4
T2Hyperfine ground state seconds; nuclear spin encoding ~40 s (Atom Computing); Rydberg gate related 1–10 msE2–E4
N_ops103 – 104Template §4.2
Array size1,180 physical qubits (Atom Computing, 1,225 sites); academic arrays thousands of atoms; Harvard 2025 demonstrated continuous operation (continuous loading)E2–E4
QEC96 LQ ([[16,6,4]] high-rate code, 448 PQ, all LQ simultaneous error correction gate operations, Nature 2026); 24 LQ entanglement (Atom Computing/Microsoft, Bacon-Shor, 1,180 PQ); toric code error reduction with scale demonstratedQuEra;Atom ComputingE2
Repetition ratetypical 1–10 Hz (S-09 hard constraint; continuous loading technique as improvement path)E2–E3
Assessment noteThis route leads the entire industry in "verified logical qubit count" in 2026; weaknesses are mid-circuit measurement (NA-04) and cycle repetition rate; Google 2026-03 newly established neutral atom lab (Boulder/JILA) corroborates route momentum
04Photonic

Photonic (measurement-based / fusion-based)

Per template §7.4, this route does not use F2Q metric, replaced by loss and success probability.

MetricSOTA referenceRepresentative system / sourceGrade
SPAM (dual-rail encoding)99.98% ± 0.01%PsiQuantum Omega(GlobalFoundries 300mm,Nature 2025)E2
HOM indistinguishability (independent sources)99.50% ± 0.25%Same as aboveE2
two-qubit fusion fidelity99.22% ± 0.12%Same as aboveE2
inter-chip interconnect fidelity99.72% ± 0.04% (42 m fiber)Same as aboveE2
Detection efficiencySNSPD ≥ 95% (due diligence threshold); leading devices higherE2–E3
System demoXanadu Aurora: 35 chips, 12 qubits, 13 km fiber-interconnected universal architecture; Borealis 216-mode GBS (sampling only, not universal)E2
Key materialsBTO (barium titanate) electro-optic switch 300mm process (PsiQuantum first)E2
Assessment noteAll fidelities are conditioned on photon detection(Conditional fidelity)—fusion fidelity figures not accompanied by an end-to-end loss budget table (PH-01) must not be used for scoring; GBS sampling demonstrations must not be counted as universal computing capability (RF-8 / PH-05)
05Spin

Spin qubits (Si/SiGe, Si-MOS, donor)

MetricSOTA referenceRepresentative system / sourceGrade
F2Q99.99%(SQC, atomically precise donor qubits, 2025-12, matching trapped-ion record);>99% on randomly sampled devices from 300 mm production wafers(Diraq+imec, Nature 2025-09, key result for manufacturing demonstration); 98.92% @ 1 K (Diraq hot qubits)E2–E3
F1Q≥ 99.9% (Diraq reported 99.85% @ 1 K)E2–E3
t2Q~10 – 100 nsE2
T210 – 100 µs (28Si purification)E2
N_ops102–103 (lowest among the five routes; evaluated jointly with gate timing per Template §4.2)
ScaleDevice level ≤ ~12 qubits; Quantum Motion 1,024 quantum dot array characterized within 5 minutes (2025)E2–E4
QEC2026-01 first error detection;2026-03 first universal logical operation —— all "first" level, far behind other routesE2–E3
CommercialEqual1 Bell-1 (GF 22FDX, F2Q 98.4%) deliveredE4
Assessment noteselling point is mass production (SP-04):weight of cross-wafer/cross-batch distribution data should be higher than single-device peak; SQC's 99.99% is a single-device result from the donor route, cannot be directly extrapolated to the quantum dot mass production route
EVIDENCE GRADES
E1 / E2Independently replicated, or peer-reviewed with full data.
E3Preprint or conference report; not yet independently replicated.
E4 / E5vendor white papers / marketing materials; note reservations in weekly commentary.
HOW TO READ
All fidelities use the publicly disclosed two-qubit gate figure. Numbers from different methods (RB/XEB/GST) or conditions (isolated/parallel) are not directly comparable — read the source alongside the table.

Primary sources

Cite this page: Quantum Brief "Quantum Hardware SOTA Comparison Table" (2026H1),https://qbitbrief.com/sota/ · Please credit the source when reprinting
Quantum BriefFOR RESEARCH REFERENCE ONLY