Most of the quantum debate still centres on physical qubit counts, but I think the number that matters for IONQ is logical qubits. Error correction can take hundreds or thousands of physical qubits to build one reliable logical qubit, so the real race is stability over millions of operations, not chip size. DARPA's Quantum Benchmarking Initiative is now testing which companies have a credible path to utility scale, which should help separate progress from hype.
My view: quantum will complement GPUs rather than replace them, and the biggest winners may be whoever controls the software and infrastructure layer. Pure plays like IONQ, RGTI and QBTS offer the most upside but come with small revenue, cash burn and dilution, so I keep them small and hold a diversified quantum ETF as the core. Cybersecurity is likely the first big impact, since post-quantum cryptography is being rolled out years before a code-breaking machine exists.
My full write-up on quantum vs AI, with the bits vs qubits explanation, is on my eToro profile:
https://med.etoro.com/aw.aspx?A=129366&Ta...af_page_v3
My view: quantum will complement GPUs rather than replace them, and the biggest winners may be whoever controls the software and infrastructure layer. Pure plays like IONQ, RGTI and QBTS offer the most upside but come with small revenue, cash burn and dilution, so I keep them small and hold a diversified quantum ETF as the core. Cybersecurity is likely the first big impact, since post-quantum cryptography is being rolled out years before a code-breaking machine exists.
My full write-up on quantum vs AI, with the bits vs qubits explanation, is on my eToro profile:
https://med.etoro.com/aw.aspx?A=129366&Ta...af_page_v3
