IonQ vs. Rigetti Computing: Which Quantum Computing Stock Has the Edge Now?

IonQ and Rigetti Computing are each attempting to reach the same goal of quantum computing, but are approaching it from opposite ends of the spectrum. 

Rigetti is creating superconducting quantum computers, which has also been the route that many legacy tech giants have taken. The creation of superconducting systems requires extensive cooling of the qubits (their individual memory structures) to near absolute zero to take advantage of quantum properties. 

Because of the complexity and expense associated with developing the infrastructure for high levels of cooled qubits, the cost and scalability of superconducting technologies will be limited to the largest players. However, the benefit from that challenge is the increased speed of computing power that superconducting architectures have when they are functioning correctly.

IonQ is creating trapped-ion quantum computers and, unlike Rigetti, is developing its quantum computers at room temperature and not utilizing the expensive infrastructure associated with cryogenic cooling. In addition to the cost advantages associated with room temperature systems, IonQ has also achieved significantly better accuracy through the use of trapped ion qubits. The company holds the world records for one-qubit and two-qubit gate fidelity, which are benchmarks that measure the fidelity of quantum computers when executing logical operations. 

IonQ’s two-qubit gate fidelity is 99.97%, while Rigetti is reporting 99.5%. The difference of only 0.47% might not seem very large; however, it is important because the difference is very difficult to achieve and shows that IonQ has a significant advantage over Rigetti in terms of error rates and dependability in the present day.

The usefulness of quantum computation for commercial purposes begins with accuracy. If you can’t trust the results, any additional speed you achieve will only deliver the wrong answer (but faster). 

This definition puts IonQ in a very good place right now as true workloads require high-fidelity outputs to meet their needs. However, it would be incorrect to say this is the conclusion of the race between these two technologies. 

If Rigetti closes the gap in fidelity to approximately IonQ, which could potentially take one to two years or more, then their superconducting technology may become very attractive because they can deliver acceptable accuracy and a quicker processing time. 

In this case, there’s a possibility that the market could become very competitive once accuracy has been achieved, especially if speed becomes more important than accuracy once some minimum threshold has been met.

Because of the way the two systems have been developed, cooling is a large part of both IonQ and Rigetti's total cost of operation, with IonQ currently ahead on a cost-per-system basis due to more efficient cooling methods. 

This means that both companies' performance against each other is a moving target as each of them continues to develop their own hardware and error correction technology (although each has somewhat different approaches). 

Both IonQ and Rigetti have said they anticipate that there will be a significant increase in quantum computer commercial applications by 2030 (which illustrates how early the area still is). However, it is virtually impossible to be able to predict what will happen in this market with any degree of certainty, given how far away that is. 

Minor changes in engineering advancement can lead to large changes in both competitive positioning and potentially the way customer demands (accuracy vs. execution speed vs. trade-offs) will drive the preferred architecture by customer segments over the next several product generations.

An all-or-nothing bet on a pure-play (such as a single pure-play) presents significant risk given the uncertainty surrounding it. 

However, if you own both IonQ and Rigetti Computing, you increase your chances of finding the eventual winner while dramatically reducing your exposure to damage from one single misstep. 

In the case of new technologies, having one significant winning company can easily cover the loss of a number of different losing companies; therefore, diversification across the theme of quantum computing is prudent. 

One alternative way to diversify is to purchase a quantum computing exchange-traded fund (ETF) that has investments in several companies throughout the quantum computing ecosystem (including legacy companies). The potential return of an ETF will likely be lower than that of an individual pure play, but the potential loss will be considerably smaller as well, since large-cap companies will not be exclusively dependent on the successful implementation of quantum computing technology in order to continue in business.