Quantum Computing Stocks Face a 2028 Reality Check

Optimistic forecasts predict the quantum computing industry could be worth trillions of dollars by 2035. (Courtesy NVIDIA)

Key Points

• McKinsey projects a trillion-dollar quantum computing market by the mid-2030s, but valuing industry peers remains a challenge.
• The Trump administration’s Quantum Genesis Q Competition sets an aggressive target to deploy a quantum computer at a national lab by 2028.
• IBM vice president, Scott Crowder, predicts the hardware sector will consolidate and many players will drop out.

Quantum is Latin for “how much.” Fittingly, investors are still trying to answer that exact question: How much value will the quantum computing industry actually deliver over time?

Optimistic forecasts from McKinsey project a trillion-dollar market by the middle of next decade, but valuing industry peers themselves remains a challenge. Even as major Wall Street firms back volatile quantum stocks, their support hasn’t silenced fears that betting on the technology means taking a high-stakes gamble.

“I would definitely say that some players have a higher percentage of fluff,” Scott Crowder, IBM’s vice president of quantum adoption, told Barron’s in a recent interview. “The market is not separating those out quite yet. It’s starting to, but that won’t really change until we get significant value from usage that’s broader-based than what it is today.”

What’s the draw? At their most ambitious, quantum systems promise to transform entire industries by solving problems far beyond the reach of classical computers. The technology holds the potential to accelerate drug discovery, optimize global supply chains, and build superior financial models.

Barron’s Tech

Our weekly newsletter covers the hottest topics in technology from chips and computing to gaming and streaming TV—all with a lens on investing.

Email addressSubscribe

I agree to the Terms of Use, Privacy Notice and Cookie Notice.

I would like to receive updates and special offers from Dow Jones and affiliates.

Before reaching those milestones—assuming those projections actually play out—the industry needs proof of real-world demand. The clearest indicator will be a rising volume of system shipments, Crowder says. While enterprise deals signal commercial traction, he considers deliveries to established sectors like government and academia just as critical for broader adoption.

While helpful, system sales paint an incomplete picture of customer traction, as many users favor cloud access over investing in physical hardware. IBM, for instance, operates the world’s largest fleet of cloud-based quantum computers, even if it doesn’t lead in on-premises sales.

Regardless, hardware deals provide good clout. IQM, IonQ , and D-Wave Quantum have struck over a dozen each. IQM has sold nearly 30 machines, and isn’t shy about declaring itself a leader in on-premises system sales.

These sales, however, don’t necessarily translate into value delivery. Most use cases are concentrated to research and development, particularly in areas where the technology is promised to deliver massive value, including pharmaceuticals and life sciences.

The systems have yet to save customers money on a broader scale—the true inflection point investors are waiting for to prove the technology’s real-world value. Market leader IQM, for instance, trades at just around $10 today.

“I think commercial customers will have the final word,” Rigetti Computing CEO Subodh Kulkarni told Barron’s. Rigetti stands out as one of the less bombastic players in an industry with no shortage of hype. That modesty may be born of necessity: the company trails peers like IonQ in commercial revenue, reflecting an ongoing effort to diversify beyond government contracts toward corporate buyers.

Management remains openly skeptical of the timelines set by both industry peers and the federal government. Under the Trump administration’s Quantum Genesis Q Competition, participating companies will receive milestone payments as they work toward an aggressive target for deploying a “scientifically relevant quantum computer” at a national lab by 2028.

An accompanying executive order sets thresholds for error-corrected qubits and two-qubit gate fidelities above 99.9%, precision levels required for applications like quantum chemistry and complex molecular modeling. Yet those benchmarks have created a pressure cooker,

“People are embracing a sort of moral hazard right now in a way that isn’t really helping the industry,” Rigetti’s chief operating officer, David Rivas, told Barron’s. “If the government decision says it needs fault tolerance by 2028, they’ll go off and redefine what fault tolerance means, which seems to be happening right now. People are making claims that are going to be difficult to stand up.”

The 2028 goal is roughly in line with IBM’s timeline, a company that has been on the receiving end of massive government backing, with half of a $2 billion funding package allocated to the company and the rest split among more than a handful of industry peers.

It also matches up with QuEra’s timeline to launch Libra—the company’s “first fault-tolerant quantum computer”—on Amazon’s Braket cloud service. Targeting a logical error rate of 10⁻⁶ in what would be a major milestone for running early fault-tolerant workflows, but still short of the more rigorously error-corrected logical rate required for large-scale quantum chemistry and other applications.

QuEra’s own chief executive warns the industry not to get ahead of itself. “We have to be realistic about what a 2028 computer is going to look like,” CEO Andy Orr told Barron’s. “I think of it as an electric car with a hundred-mile range. I can go to a grocery store, I can pick up my kids from a sleepover, but I’m not going to be able to drive from Boston to New York. The next generation has a 500-mile range.”

That distinction between early capability and utility highlights a recurring problem across the sector. Quantum may not be sci-fi anymore, but it remains deeply misunderstood. Although bodies like the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency and NIST are working to set benchmarks and standards, the field is fragmented across different modalities, with little consensus on which metrics best reflect quantum performance.

One clear trend is emerging: Attitudes are shifting, and once boundless enthusiasm is giving way to growing skepticism. “If you don’t show actual results on hardware in real world conditions, people are starting to ask questions,” Quantinuum CEO Rajeeb Hazra explained.

In a highly scientific field like quantum, the devil is in the details. Claims of advantage over classical hardware from IBM, Google, and D-Wave have been challenged by researchers at the Flatiron Institute, who argue classical algorithms can solve the same problems just as fast. Similarly, IonQ’s recent development in error-correction came with the caveat of relying on simulated noise models rather than physical quantum hardware.

These nuances are easy to overlook. Consequently, everyday investors may struggle to weigh risks and rewards, let alone anticipate where the market is headed over the next decade.

IBM’s Crowder has an idea of what it may look like. “The forward-looking guess is there will be a lot of consolidation,” he said. “A lot of players will drop out on the hardware side and there will be a lot more players on the software side.”

For investors trying to answer that original query— how much? —Crowder’s prediction points to a sober reality. Quantum may one day deliver on its massive promises, but until real-world utility catches up with the hype the market outlook remains an open question.

Write to Mackenzie Tatananni at mackenzie.tatananni@barrons.com

Copyright ©2026 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved. 87990cbe856818d5eddac44c7b1cdeb8