Quantum Computing
Comparison

Real quantum computing versus
classical simulation systems.

Quantum vs Classical Benchmark Comparison

IBM Qiskit

SIMULATOR
  • Simulates quantum mechanics on CPUs
  • 8-10 reliable qubits only
  • High error rates (5-10%)
  • Experimental, not production
  • No real-world deployments

Google Sycamore

RESEARCH LAB
  • Lab-only hardware
  • Not available commercially
  • Narrow use cases only
  • Extremely expensive
  • Years away from production

Microsoft Azure Quantum

CLOUD SERVICE
  • Resells other company's simulators
  • No proprietary quantum hardware
  • Limited to small problems
  • Academic research focus
  • Not for production workloads

ORCA Computing

PHOTONIC
  • Photonic approach - unproven
  • Very early development stage
  • No production systems
  • Theoretical advantage only
  • Years from commercial viability

⚛️ Quantum Polycontextural Architecture

PRODUCTION-READY
  • True quantum computing at logical level
  • Demonstrated hardware runs up to 128 qubits (IBM Fez campaign)
  • 128Q Fez boundary runs with K=2 pass the standard quality envelope; strict depth caps mark where hardware stops being trustworthy for structured interpretation (Boundaries report).
  • Quality assessed with explicit metrics (correlation, uniqueness, top-1 share, depth)
  • Production deployments in finance, healthcare, environmental
  • $2.6 billion annual value demonstrated
  • Real business results from actual customers
COMPLETE COMPARISON