IBM vs Google vs IonQ vs PsiQuantum
Quantum Hardware Platform Comparison
Comparison of the top 4 quantum computing platforms — qubit count, modality, error rates, and roadmap to fault tolerance.
IBM HeronGoogle WillowIonQ FortePsiQuantum
Full Specification Comparison
| Specification | IBM Heron | Google Willow | IonQ Forte | PsiQuantum |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Qubit Modality | Superconducting | Superconducting | Trapped Ion | Photonic |
| Qubit Count | 1,386 | 105 | 36 algorithmic | 1M (target) |
| 2-qubit Error Rate | ~0.5% | ~0.3% | ~0.1% | N/A (photonic) |
| Quantum Advantage | Claimed (2023) | Achieved (2019, 2024) | No | No |
| Error Correction | Surface code | Below threshold | Partial | Fusion-based |
| Cloud Access | Yes (IBM Q) | Limited | Yes (AWS, Azure) | No |
| Timeline to FT | 2029 | 2028-2030 | 2028 | 2030-2035 |
Expert Verdict
IBM leads in qubit count and ecosystem; Google achieved below-threshold error correction with Willow; IonQ offers high-fidelity trapped ions; PsiQuantum bets on photonic scale-up.
Subject Breakdown
IBM Heron
1 Category Wins
- ★ Qubit Count: 1,386
Google Willow
0 Category Wins
IonQ Forte
1 Category Wins
- ★ 2-qubit Error Rate: ~0.1%
PsiQuantum
0 Category Wins