Quantum Computing BLUprint – Comprehensive

Study Notes
Introduction and Global Context
Quantum computing has rapidly emerged as a frontier technology garnering worldwide attention.
Governments are heavily investing in quantum research and security: for example, the United States passed
a mandate for federal agencies to adopt quantum-safe cryptography, and India launched a National
Quantum Mission in 2023 1 2 . These initiatives underscore the strategic importance of quantum
computing, as nations race to harness its potential. India’s nascent quantum ecosystem, in particular, is
seen as a rare opportunity to align research, infrastructure, and capital in order to build a self-reliant
quantum technology stack 3 . With global advancements still in flux, India can leverage its strong talent
pool, government support, and growing deep-tech investments to carve a competitive position in the
quantum domain 3 .

Methodology: The Quantum Computing BLUprint report by Blume Ventures (March 2025) is grounded in
extensive research. The author analyzed fundamental quantum principles and the inherent properties of
quantum systems, studied tens of scientific papers and industry articles, and surveyed the competitive
landscape (including 261 funded startups across 6 categories and 28 subcategories) 4 5 . Funding data,
market projections, and technical performance metrics were collected to draw insights on applications, use-
cases, and policies. The goal is to provide founders, investors, and stakeholders a 360° view of quantum
computing – from theory and technology to market and policy – and actionable guidance for participating
in this emerging ecosystem 6 5 .

Quantum Computing Basics: Qubits and Quantum Principles

At the heart of quantum computing is the qubit, the quantum analog of a classical bit. Unlike a bit, which
can only be 0 or 1, a qubit can exist in a superposition of states – it’s as if a coin were spinning so that it’s
both heads and tails at the same time until observed 7 . This property means that two qubits can encode
four combined states at once (00, 01, 10, 11), three qubits eight states, and so on – exponentially more
information than the same number of classical bits. Qubits are probabilistic, described by a wavefunction,
and yield definite outcomes only upon measurement (when the superposition “collapses” to 0 or 1). Key
quantum phenomena include:

• Superposition: The ability of a quantum system (qubit) to be in multiple states simultaneously.

Analogy: Imagine being in two places at once – a quantum particle can do that until you check on it
8 . Superposition enables parallel evaluation of many possibilities, giving quantum computers a

form of massive parallelism in certain computations.

• Entanglement: A mysterious correlation between qubits such that the state of one instantly
influences the state of another, no matter how far apart they are. Einstein called this “spooky action

1
 at a distance.” Analogy: It’s like having two coins magically linked – flip one and the other always
miraculously shows a correlated result 9 . Entangled qubits act in concert, enabling complex multi-
qubit operations and potentially powerful computing capabilities beyond what isolated bits can do.
• Interference: Quantum states (represented by probability amplitudes) can interfere with each
other like waves. When designed properly, the interference of qubit states can amplify correct
solutions and cancel out incorrect ones 10 11 . Analogy: Think of ripples on a pond – sometimes
waves add up, other times they cancel. Quantum algorithms leverage interference to “steer” a
computation toward the right answer faster than classical brute force.

Qubits vs Classical Bits – a Maze Analogy: The report illustrates the power of qubits with a maze-solving
analogy. A classical computer (using bits) would try one path at a time through a maze, step by step, which
is a slow sequential process 12 . A quantum computer, by contrast, can explore multiple paths
simultaneously thanks to superposition. If one path leads to a dead-end, entanglement ensures that all
related paths are instantly marked as unpromising, and interference helps weed out the bad paths
dynamically 13 . Thus, the quantum approach finds the exit much faster by effectively trying many
possibilities in parallel and zeroing in on the correct solution 14 15 . This highlights how qubits offer an
exponential computational advantage for certain problem types, whereas classical bits follow a linear, one-
thing-at-a-time progression.

• Quantum Gates: Just as classical logic gates (AND, OR, NOT) operate on bits, quantum gates
manipulate qubits 16 . However, quantum gates are reversible unitary operations and can create
and maintain superposition and entanglement. Analogy: If classical gates are like basic arithmetic
operations, quantum gates are more like rotations and reflections of a multi-dimensional object –
they change the probability amplitudes of qubit states in complex ways rather than just flipping 0 to
1 17 . Quantum circuits built from these gates carry out quantum algorithms.

• Quantum Algorithms: These are specialized sets of instructions exploiting superposition and
entanglement to solve problems faster than classical algorithms. Analogy: Think of them as “recipes
that only work in the quantum kitchen” 18 – they leverage the unique ingredients of quantum
physics. Famous examples include Shor’s algorithm for factoring (which could break RSA encryption)
and Grover’s search algorithm for speeding up unstructured searches. Quantum algorithms often
provide polynomial or exponential speedups for specific tasks by utilizing parallelism and
interference in ways classical computing cannot.

• Quantum Tunneling: Another quantum phenomenon (used in quantum annealing computers)

where particles can pass through energy barriers rather than going over them. Analogy: Like a ghost
walking through a wall 19 . In computing, tunneling can be harnessed (e.g. by quantum annealers)
to find low-energy solutions to optimization problems by effectively “tunneling” through high-energy
obstacles on the solution landscape.

• Decoherence: The biggest foe of quantum computing. This is the loss of quantum behavior when
qubits interact with their environment and their delicate superposition states fall apart. Analogy: It’s
like a perfectly stacked house of cards collapsing when a breeze (noise) hits it 20 . Decoherence
causes errors by randomizing qubit states, and quantum computers must operate faster than the
decoherence time or use quantum error correction to mitigate it. Current qubits are very
susceptible to decoherence from sources like thermal vibrations, electromagnetic noise, or materials
defects, which is why they often require ultra-cold temperatures and isolation.

2
 • Quantum Supremacy (Quantum Advantage): Quantum supremacy is the milestone when a
quantum computer performs a task that no classical computer can feasibly solve in a reasonable
time. It’s not a sinister term, just a technical one – the moment a quantum machine demonstrably
outperforms the most powerful supercomputer on a specific problem 21 . This was first claimed in
2019 by Google’s 53-qubit “Sycamore” processor, which took minutes to do a randomness sampling
task that was estimated to take thousands of years classically. In general, the more meaningful
quantum advantage for industry will come when quantum computers solve practical problems
faster or better than classical computers can.

Why Quantum Computing? Because classical computing is reaching its limits. Transistor sizes in CPUs are
now at the atomic scale, and further improvements face physical barriers. We’ve observed that the historical
Moore’s Law (doubling transistor density roughly every 2 years) is slowing down. Processor clock speeds
and single-thread performance have stagnated, and power dissipation issues limit packing more transistors
22 . In short, the rate of increase in classical processing power has plateaued, even if transistor counts

still tick upward 23 . Quantum computing offers a new path beyond these limits by using fundamentally
different physics to process information. While adding more classical bits gives only linear scaling, adding
qubits can give exponential scaling in computational power for certain problems 24 25 . For example, 50
qubits in full superposition represent $2^{50}$ states simultaneously – something no classical computer
can do with 50 bits. Thus, leveraging qubits and quantum mechanics could allow us to solve problems in
chemistry, cryptography, optimization, and material science that are completely intractable for classical
supercomputers. Quantum computing isn’t about replacing our laptops or doing everyday tasks like email
or video streaming – classical computers remain more efficient for general use. Instead, quantum
computers will act as accelerators or specialized co-processors for specific high-value computations where
they have an advantage.

Quantum Computing’s Potential and Market Outlook

From theory to trillion-dollar impact – experts project that quantum computing could unlock enormous
economic value in the coming decades. By 2035, quantum technologies are estimated to create up to $2
trillion in economic value across major industries such as chemical manufacturing, pharmaceuticals/life
sciences, finance, and automotive/mobility 26 . This value reflects improved solutions and efficiencies that
quantum computing could bring (for example, discovering new drugs faster, optimizing complex financial
portfolios, or designing lighter, stronger materials for vehicles).

In terms of direct market size, the revenue from quantum computing (including hardware sales, cloud
services, and professional services) is forecasted to grow substantially by 2035–2040. McKinsey estimates
range from a conservative ~$28 billion by 2035 (and ~$45 billion by 2040) to an optimistic ~$72 billion by
2035 (and $131 billion by 2040) 27 28 . Even under the conservative scenario, this represents a multi-
billion dollar industry within 10–15 years – a huge jump from the relatively small size today. Cumulatively,
hardware, cloud (QCaaS), and associated services could generate around $50 billion in revenue through
2035 29 .

Why such large numbers? Because quantum computing can potentially solve high-impact problems that
classical computers cannot, in fields that themselves are very large. For example, the ability to simulate
molecular interactions precisely (quantum chemistry) could revolutionize drug discovery and materials
design, leading to breakthrough pharmaceuticals or batteries – a market with massive value. In finance,

3
quantum algorithms could optimize investment portfolios or detect fraud far better, impacting trillions in
assets. In logistics and mobility, quantum optimization might streamline supply chains or traffic
management globally, saving billions. These transformative improvements across sectors add up to trillions
in economic benefit (this “economic value” includes cost savings and new revenues enabled by quantum
solutions) 26 .

However, it’s important to note that this value will not materialize overnight. The industry is still in an
immature, exploratory stage. Significant commercial impact is expected only once hardware becomes
more capable (e.g. error-corrected qubit systems) and scalable applications are developed – likely over a 5–
15 year horizon. The next section will break down the ecosystem and what needs to happen to reach that
point.

The Quantum Computing Value Chain

Developing and deploying quantum computers involves a stack of different technological layers and
services. The report identifies several segments in the quantum computing value chain, each of which
startups and companies are targeting:

• Hardware (Quantum Processors & Full Systems): This is the foundation – the physical quantum
processors (QPU) and the complete quantum computers built around them (including control
electronics, cryogenics, etc.). Only a few startups globally focus on building full-stack quantum
hardware due to the extreme complexity and cost. These are the companies trying to make actual
quantum machines (e.g. superconducting or trapped-ion quantum computers). In India, for
instance, there are only two startups so far aiming to build a full quantum computer hardware stack
30 .

• Equipment and Components: This category includes specialized hardware components and
subsystems needed to build quantum computers. Examples are companies making qubit chips,
cryogenic refrigerators, control electronics (microwave signal generators, lasers for controlling
qubits), photon sources and detectors, vacuum chambers, etc. A developing global supply chain is
emerging for such components, though it’s currently dominated by firms in North America and
Europe (over 75% of component providers are based in those regions) 31 . Essentially, these are the
“pick-and-shovel” providers enabling quantum hardware development. Many startups (especially
those without resources to build a full computer) choose to innovate in one piece of the hardware
puzzle (for example, a better quantum interconnect or a high-fidelity measurement device). This
segment is critical for improving the overall performance and scalability of quantum systems.

• Quantum Cloud Services (QCaaS): Not every user will own a quantum computer; instead, many will
access quantum processors through the cloud. Quantum Computing as a Service (offered by
providers like IBM, Amazon Braket, etc.) allows users to run quantum algorithms on remote
hardware. Startups in this segment might offer their own cloud-based quantum access or build
software platforms that integrate quantum and classical computing for users. Essentially, cloud
service providers act as intermediaries, providing on-demand quantum processing power and
associated management tools. Some startups might specialize in specific cloud-based quantum

4
 solutions or create hybrid platforms that seamlessly use quantum co-processors alongside classical
HPC.

• System Software (Quantum Middleware): This layer sits between the hardware and end-user
applications. It includes things like quantum compilers, error correction protocols, runtime
environments, and low-level programming frameworks that help developers write algorithms for
specific quantum hardware. It also includes control software that orchestrates the pulses or laser
sequences to manipulate qubits. Startups here are building the “operating systems” for quantum
computers – ensuring algorithms can run efficiently on hardware, abstracting hardware-specific
quirks, and sometimes providing hardware-agnostic layers for portability. As quantum hardware
advances, system software will be key to managing large numbers of qubits and handling error
correction in real-time.

• Application Software (Quantum Algorithms & Solutions): This is the most popular segment for
startups currently. It involves developing algorithms and software tools for specific use-cases – for
example, quantum software for optimizing supply chains, quantum chemistry simulators for
pharmaceuticals, or quantum machine learning frameworks for AI tasks. These companies often
don’t build any hardware themselves; they use existing quantum hardware (via cloud or
partnerships) and focus on solving problems in domains like finance, logistics, chemistry, etc., using
quantum techniques. The report notes that application-layer software is the favorite part of the
value chain for startups, since it typically requires less capital than hardware and can generate
nearer-term value 32 33 . By one analysis, about 50% of quantum computing startups globally are
offering some form of application software solution 33 .

• Other Services (Consulting and Education): A portion of the ecosystem is in training, consulting,
and integration services. These are firms that help businesses understand quantum tech, train their
staff, or integrate quantum solutions into existing IT infrastructure. Given how new and complex
quantum computing is, many potential end-users (enterprises, governments) need guidance to
assess when and how to adopt it. Some startups provide quantum consulting, workshops, or even
“quantum readiness” assessments. Others focus on building talent through education platforms or
courses in quantum computing.

It’s common for a single company to span multiple segments of this value chain 33 . For instance, a full-
stack hardware startup might also develop custom control software (system software) and provide cloud
access to their machines. Or a software startup might do consulting for clients in addition to selling a
platform. According to the report’s analysis of funded startups, the majority are concentrated in software
(applications), while relatively few are in hardware. In fact, roughly half of all quantum startups globally are
working on application software, whereas only ~20% are focused on building quantum hardware or
processors themselves 33 . The rest populate intermediate layers (about one-quarter in hardware
components, and smaller percentages in cloud services, system software, and consulting) 33 . This skew
makes sense: hardware is expensive and long-term, whereas software can potentially create value sooner
by running on today’s quantum or classical hardware (even simulators).

To summarize, the quantum value chain ranges from the low-level physics of qubits up to high-level
software solutions, with many opportunities in between. A startup must decide where to play: building
enabling hardware tech, providing integration and cloud services, or developing algorithms and apps that

5
ride on top of quantum hardware. The next sections will delve into the state of quantum hardware and
software in more detail, as well as the startup landscape and investments.

Quantum Hardware: Qubit Technologies and Architectures

Qubits are the building blocks of quantum computers, and there are several competing technologies for
realizing them. Choosing the right type of qubit is crucial, as it affects R&D investment needs, development
timelines, scalability, and the kinds of applications that can be run 34 . Each qubit technology has its own
advantages and challenges. Here are the main qubit implementations and their characteristics:

• Superconducting Qubits: The most widely used qubit type so far. These qubits are made from
superconducting circuits (often involving Josephson junctions) that operate at extremely low
temperatures (millikelvin range) to eliminate electrical resistance. Superconducting qubits are
manipulated using microwave pulses. Examples: IBM, Google, and Rigetti all use superconducting
qubits.
• Pros: They can perform operations (gate speeds) very fast (nanoseconds) and have been the first to
achieve high-fidelity logic gates at scale (50+ qubits) using well-understood fabrication (akin to
silicon chip manufacturing) 35 . The technology benefits from decades of research in
superconducting electronics and can leverage existing semiconductor fabrication techniques to
some extent.

• Cons: They require dilution refrigerators (massive cryogenic coolers) to maintain quantum
coherence, since they must be near absolute zero. This makes systems complex and power-hungry.
Coherence times are relatively short (tens of microseconds typically) before the qubit state decays
36 , which means error correction is needed for longer computations. Scaling to millions of qubits is

difficult due to wiring and cooling constraints, and each additional qubit adds significant
engineering overhead.

• Trapped Ion Qubits: These use individual charged atoms (ions) suspended in vacuum by
electromagnetic traps. The ions’ internal electronic or hyperfine states serve as qubit states, and they
are manipulated with laser pulses. Examples: IonQ and Quantinuum (Honeywell) use trapped
ytterbium or ytterbium/barium ions.

• Pros: Trapped ions are very stable qubits – they have much longer coherence times (sometimes
seconds or more) 36 and extremely high-fidelity gate operations (record fidelities ~99.9%) due to
precise laser control. All ions of the same species are identical, which aids reproducibility. They
typically operate at ultra-high vacuum but room-temperature environments (no extreme cryogenics
needed, though often they might be cooled to moderate temperatures). Multiple ions in a trap can
be entangled via collective motion using lasers, enabling multi-qubit gates.

• Cons: Gate operations (using lasers to manipulate ions) are relatively slow – often thousands of times
slower than superconducting gate speeds. Scaling up involves trapping many ions and controlling a
complex system of lasers or optical modulators, which becomes challenging beyond ~50-100 ions.
Crosstalk and mode management get harder with more ions. Additionally, the hardware (vacuum
systems, stable lasers) is delicate and not easily integrated on a chip, meaning it might be harder to
miniaturize into compact systems.

6
• Neutral Atom Qubits: Similar to trapped ions, but using neutral (uncharged) atoms trapped in
arrays using optical tweezers (focused laser beams). The qubit states are usually atomic energy
levels (which can be manipulated via lasers, including exciting atoms to high-energy “Rydberg” states
to make them interact). Examples: Pasqal (France) and QuEra (USA) use neutral atom arrays (e.g.
rubidium atoms).

• Pros: Neutral atom platforms can scalably create large 2D (or 3D) arrays of hundreds of atom
qubits by simply using multiple laser traps – they’ve demonstrated 100+ atom setups. Atoms are
identical and have potentially decent coherence properties. They operate at very cold temperatures
(atoms are laser-cooled to micro-Kelvin) but do not require cryostats – they often take place in
vacuum chambers at near-room-temperature environment aside from the atomic cooling. This
approach is very promising for scaling to many qubits (hundreds to thousands) relatively quickly.

• Cons: Two-qubit gates between neutral atoms rely on inducing interactions (like using Rydberg
states), which can be tricky and currently have moderate fidelity and speeds. Maintaining uniform
control and preventing decoherence for many atoms is difficult. Also, loading and arranging the
atoms reliably and reloading if an atom is lost can pose operational overhead. Neutral atom tech is
still maturing, and achieving error rates low enough for quantum algorithms is an ongoing
challenge.

• Photonic Qubits: Photonic quantum computing uses particles of light (photons) as qubits, typically
using the photon’s polarization or phase to represent 0/1 states. Photons are naturally resistant to
decoherence (they can travel long distances without interacting strongly with environment), and
importantly, photonic systems can often operate at room temperature. Photonic qubits are
manipulated with linear optical elements like beam splitters, phase shifters, and waveguides, and
measured with photon detectors 35 . Examples: PsiQuantum (USA) is building a photonic quantum
computer; Xanadu (Canada) uses photonics with squeezed light states; several others focus on
photonic chips.

• Pros: No cryogenics required for the qubits themselves (though single-photon detectors may need
cooling). Photonic chips (PICs – photonic integrated circuits) can be fabricated using semiconductor
processes, meaning one can leverage existing silicon photonics manufacturing – a huge advantage
for scaling and cost 37 38 . Photonic qubits can be transmitted through fiber optic cables, enabling
natural networking of quantum devices (useful for quantum communication). Also, photonic systems
can potentially be more easily made modular – different chips or components connected via optical
fibers to build a larger system 39 .

• Cons: Creating deterministic single photons on demand with identical properties is hard – many
photonic approaches rely on probabilistic photon sources (like spontaneous parametric down-
conversion in crystals), which complicates scaling. Two-photon gates are also probabilistic unless
using special schemes (photons don’t naturally interact, so one needs mediators or nonlinear
materials). Photon losses in circuits and fiber are an issue; as you scale up number of photons, losses
compound and reduce the computation fidelity. Additionally, while photons don’t decohere by
themselves, you need reliable photon number-resolving detectors (PNRDs) that can count single
photons – current tech struggles to balance efficiency and accuracy in detecting multiple photons
40 . Memory is another issue: storing a photonic qubit (a photon) for any length of time is difficult

(quantum memories for photons are an active research area) 41 .

7
 • Semiconductor Spin Qubits (Quantum Dots): These qubits use the spin of an electron (or nucleus)
confined in a solid-state device, such as an electron in a quantum dot (a nanoscale semiconductor
structure) or a dopant atom in silicon. Essentially, they are like artificial atoms in a chip. Examples:
Intel is researching silicon spin qubits; academic spinoffs like Diraq and Quantum Motion are
working on quantum dot arrays; HRL Labs and others have demos.

• Pros: These have the potential to leverage conventional CMOS fabrication – billions of quantum dots
could (in theory) be made on a chip, integrating with classical electronics. They operate at low
temperatures (typically ~millikelvin, like superconducting qubits) but are very small in size, which
could aid scaling (many qubits per chip). Coherence times can be decent (especially for donor spins,
which can be milliseconds or more for nuclear spins) and gate fidelities have been improving. If
mastered, spin qubits could allow millions of qubits on a small silicon chip, making them attractive
for long-term scalability 36 .

• Cons: They are technically challenging – controlling single electron spins and coupling them is hard
because of variability in manufactured quantum dots. Qubits can suffer from material defects and
noise (e.g., fluctuating magnetic fields, or interactions with other nuclear spins in the lattice).
Operating a large array might require complex interconnects (wiring each quantum dot to control
electronics). So far, only small numbers (tens) of spin qubits have been demonstrated with
entanglement. The technology is still largely in the research phase, lagging a bit behind
superconducting and ion qubits in maturity.

• Topological Qubits: A more futuristic approach aiming to store qubits in special “topologically
protected” states of matter, which are inherently resistant to noise. The most cited example is using
Majorana zero modes in certain superconductors or exotic materials. Microsoft has been a big
proponent of this approach.

• Pros: If realized, topological qubits could have much lower error rates because of the physical nature
of their encoding (essentially, the information is stored non-locally, making it immune to local
disturbances). This would drastically reduce the overhead for error correction – a potential game-
changer for building large quantum computers 36 42 .
• Cons: To date, topological qubits have not yet been conclusively demonstrated. It relies on discovering
and controlling new states of matter (Majorana particles) and complex nanostructures. Microsoft
and collaborators have been working for years with only very recent tentative progress. Until
topological qubits are proven, this remains a high-risk, long-term research path. If it succeeds,
however, it could leapfrog other qubit types in viability.

How do we compare qubit technologies? The report emphasizes that having a single universal metric for
qubit quality is challenging – each architecture has multiple facets and often a strength in one aspect comes
with a tradeoff in another 43 . However, several key performance metrics are commonly used to evaluate
qubits 44 45 :

• Coherence Time: How long a qubit can maintain its quantum state (superposition/entanglement)
before noise causes it to decohere. Longer coherence means the qubit can perform more operations
or hold information longer – crucial for solving complex problems and reducing error-correction
overhead 46 . (E.g., trapped ions have long coherence, superconducting qubits have shorter
coherence, often necessitating very fast operations.) A “favorable” value is as long as possible

8
 (milliseconds or more ideally), but what’s needed also depends on gate speed (if gates are super fast,
short coherence can be somewhat mitigated by finishing computation quicker).

• Gate Fidelity: The accuracy of operations on qubits. Even if a qubit is stable, if the operations (gates)
are imprecise, errors accumulate. Fidelity is typically measured as a percentage (closer to 100% is
better). High fidelity means the quantum gate does exactly what it’s supposed to, with minimal error
each time 16 . For practical quantum computing, we desire error rates per gate below 0.01% (99.99%
fidelity) or better, especially when scaling to many operations. Current status: some technologies like
ions and certain superconducting setups have demonstrated >99% single-qubit and two-qubit
fidelities in the lab.

• Scalability: This refers to how feasible it is to increase the number of qubits to the large counts
needed for solving meaningful problems (likely thousands or millions of qubits). It’s not just about
physical space, but also controlling them without a huge overhead and keeping error rates
manageable as the system grows 47 . For example, superconducting qubits are connected via wiring,
which becomes a bottleneck when trying to scale to even a few thousand qubits (imagine thousands
of microwave lines going into a fridge). Photonic qubits might be more scalable in principle (chip-
based and modular networking) but have their own challenges. Scalability is considered “high” if one
can envision a path to millions of qubits; as of now, no platform has achieved that, but photonics and
spin qubits pitch themselves as more scalable than, say, trapped ions.

• Error Rates: Related to fidelity, this is the probability of a qubit operation or measurement yielding
the wrong result due to noise or imperfections 48 . Low error rates (and low qubit idle error, readout
error, etc.) are crucial so that algorithms can run deep circuits. If error rates are high, error-
correcting codes will need a lot of redundant qubits, dramatically raising the qubit count required for
a useful logical qubit. For instance, superconducting qubits have error rates on the order of 0.1–1%
for two-qubit gates in many systems today; trapped ions can be 0.1% or better; photonics gates
(fusion gates) currently often have higher error rates due to photon loss.

• Fabrication/Operational Complexity: How difficult and costly is it to make the qubits and their
control systems? If a technology requires exotic materials or extremely intricate manufacturing
steps, it may be harder to produce in large quantities reliably 49 . Also, if a qubit needs a complex
infrastructure (like dilution refrigerators or ultra-stable lasers), that adds complexity. A “favorable”
qubit technology would be one that’s relatively straightforward to fabricate (perhaps in existing fabs)
and not too onerous to operate (e.g. room temperature operation is a big plus).

• Operating Conditions: The conditions the hardware needs – vacuum? Cryogenic temperatures?
Isolation from magnetic fields? Ideally, qubits that work in ambient or modest conditions are
preferred, as they avoid the overhead of special equipment 49 . Photonic qubits and certain spin
qubits (if using electron spins maybe not, but some nuclear spin implementations) can operate at
higher temperatures; superconducting and many spin qubits need deep cryogenics; ions need
vacuum and lasers, etc. Room-temperature or near-room-temperature operation is considered a
strong advantage for eventual commercial deployment 49 .

In the report’s benchmarking comparison, each qubit type has different strengths. For example, trapped
ions score great on coherence and fidelity but lower on scalability and speed; superconductors are strong
on speed and well-developed (lots of R&D done) but require cryogenics and have shorter coherence;

9
photonic qubits excel in operating at room temp and potential scalability through chip integration, but
currently face higher gate errors and lack of memory; spin qubits (quantum dots) integrate with
semiconductors but need much more development to reach high fidelity and numbers; topological qubits
promise long coherence and low errors but are still hypothetical 36 42 . This landscape is rapidly evolving,
and ongoing research could alter the rankings of each technology 50 .

Spotlight: Photonic Qubits and Why They’re Startup-Friendly

The report devotes special attention to photonic qubit systems as a promising path for startups, due to
lower capital requirements and nearer-term applications 51 . Photonic quantum computing can leverage
existing silicon photonics manufacturing processes – meaning startups don’t necessarily need to build
completely new fabrication infrastructure; they can partner with semiconductor fabs to produce photonic
chips. This is a huge advantage: photonic qubits can be manufactured using mature chip-making techniques,
which lowers R&D cost and potentially accelerates development 37 . In contrast, something like
superconducting qubits often requires custom fabrication in specialized lab foundries and expensive
dilution refrigerators for testing each iteration.

As of the report, there are 16 known funded startups building photonic quantum processors or full-stack
photonic quantum computers 37 . Why the interest? A few reasons:

• Room-temperature Operation: Photonic systems can often operate without cryogenics (though
some detectors might need cooling). This means simpler system requirements and eventually more
practical deployment (imagine a photonic quantum accelerator that could, in theory, sit in a normal
data center without a giant fridge).

• Modularity and Networking: It’s easier to connect photonic modules – you can have multiple
smaller photonic processors connected via fiber-optic links. Traditional qubits are harder to connect
once they are in separate cryostats. Photonics aligns well with creating a distributed quantum
computing network or quantum internet, and it can re-use a lot of telecom fiber infrastructure for
sending qubits between locations 39 52 . This also helps scalability: instead of one huge processor,
you could have many photonic chips networked together (assuming fast, high-fidelity photonic
interconnects).

• CMOS Compatibility: Recent research found that materials like silicon nitride (SiN) and certain types
of glass can be used to make photonic circuits with improved performance 53 . These can be
integrated into existing semiconductor fabs. Startups can design photonic integrated circuits (PICs)
for sources, waveguides, and detectors and get them fabricated using standard processes (e.g.,
through multi-project wafer runs). This dramatically lowers the barrier to entry compared to trying to
build, say, a new superconducting lab from scratch.

However, the report also outlines key innovation challenges that photonic quantum computing still faces
54 55 :

• On-Demand Single-Photon Sources: We need sources that can generate indistinguishable single
photons with the same properties (wavelength, timing, etc.) when we want them, rather than
probabilistically. Currently, a lot of photonic experiments rely on probabilistic sources (like splitting a
laser where sometimes a photon pair is generated), which don’t scale well because of the

10
 exponential drop in multi-photon generation rates. Technologies under pursuit include quantum dot
emitters, defect centers in diamonds, or nonlinear optical methods (e.g., optical parametric
oscillators) that produce single photons on demand 56 . This is a critical area: stable, bright single-
photon sources that can be integrated on chip would be a game-changer.

• Photonic Chip Components: Photonic qubits are manipulated by components like beam splitters,
phase shifters, interferometers, etc. On a chip, making these low-loss and precise is important.
There’s progress in using lithography and etching to create on-chip waveguides for routing
photons 57 . Active components (electro-optic modulators, switches) can be integrated as well,
though adding them (often requiring materials like lithium niobate or Pockels effect modulators) is
complex. Ensuring that these components can handle quantum states (which require coherence)
with minimal loss and noise is a challenge. The report notes that ~35% of photonic component
providers are focusing on integrating active elements like phase shifters and beam splitters into
semiconductor fab processes 55 .

• Single-Photon Detectors (SPD): Detecting single photons reliably is crucial for reading results (and
for some photonic logic gates). The leading tech for detection is Superconducting Nanowire Single
Photon Detectors (SNSPDs), often made of materials like NbN (niobium nitride) patterned as a tiny
wire that superconducts until a photon hits and causes a momentary resistive blip. SNSPDs have
very high detection efficiency and low noise, but they typically need to be at cryogenic temperatures
(2–4 K). Integrating SNSPDs onto photonic chips is an area of active development 58 . They have
managed to fabricate SNSPDs on chip with photonic waveguides in some cases. The report
highlights that balancing detection efficiency vs. photon-number resolution is tricky – devices
that can count multiple photons (PNRDs) often sacrifice some efficiency or have other limitations
40 . Improving SNSPDs and on-chip PNRDs is necessary for scalable photonic quantum computing.

• Quantum Memory for Photons: Photons are great for communication but not easy to store. Some
quantum computing schemes require a temporary memory (delay lines or quantum storage) for
synchronization. The report indicates efficient, long-term quantum memory for photonic
systems is still under development 41 . Approaches include using atomic ensembles to absorb
and re-emit photons on demand, or optical delay lines, but none are perfect. Without memory,
certain gate schemes (like linear optical quantum computing with measurement-induced gates)
become less efficient because you can’t easily synchronize probabilistic events.

• Interfacing and Scaling: As photonic systems grow, combining multiple chips or sources becomes
necessary. The good news is you can use optical fiber or on-chip waveguides to connect components
– and telecom fiber networks can even be leveraged for distributed computing 59 . But coupling
light between chips or fibers introduces loss, and making modular assembly truly plug-and-play will
require standards and precision alignment. The report notes that modular assembly of photonic
systems (multiple chips interconnected) is a plus, and existing fiber infrastructure might help scale
across distances 39 .

In summary, photonic qubit technology offers a path to more easily scalable and room-temperature
quantum computers, which is why many startups are pursuing it. But success depends on solving
outstanding physics and engineering challenges in photon generation, manipulation, and detection. The
report’s analysis suggests photonics could yield nearer-term industry adoption (in part via quantum

11
communication networks and small-scale processors) with relatively lower R&D cost than, say, trying to
build a brand new superconducting lab, which makes it attractive for newcomers 51 .

Quantum Software and Applications

While quantum hardware often steals the spotlight, software is where much of the early adoption is
happening. In fact, the report emphasizes that near-term quantum impact will likely come through
software applications that harness quantum algorithms, often in hybrid ways with classical systems 60
61 . We are already in an era where quantum software solutions are being developed for material

discovery, optimization, and data security, even if current quantum hardware is limited 61 . Many
quantum software startups have emerged, providing tools and algorithms that run on existing quantum
hardware (or simulators) to tackle specific problems. This approach requires far less capital than building
hardware and can deliver value to customers sooner by solving parts of problems or providing quantum-
inspired insights.

According to the report, roughly:

• ~45% of quantum software startups focus on simulation for materials and chemistry 62 . These
companies use quantum algorithms to simulate molecular structures, chemical reactions, or new
materials at the quantum level. Why this is valuable: Classical computers struggle with exact
simulations of quantum systems (like complex molecules) because the computational cost explodes
exponentially with the number of particles and interactions. They resort to approximations.
Quantum computers can, in principle, simulate other quantum systems more naturally. For example,
algorithms for quantum chemistry can directly represent molecular electron orbitals on qubits and
find ground state energies more efficiently. This could accelerate discovery of new drugs, catalysts,
or materials (batteries, solar cells, superconductors, etc.) by predicting properties without needing
exhaustive lab experiments. Early quantum processors are still small, but even intermediate-scale
simulations or hybrid quantum-classical methods can provide insights that complement classical
methods.

• ~40% of quantum application startups work on optimization problems (e.g. for finance, supply
chain, logistics, and engineering) 63 . Optimization is a broad area: finding optimal solutions among
a vast number of possibilities (such as optimal routing of deliveries, optimal scheduling, portfolio
optimization, etc.). Many such problems are NP-hard and scale poorly for classical algorithms, which
often have to brute-force or use heuristics. Quantum algorithms (like QAOA – Quantum Approximate
Optimization Algorithm, or quantum annealing approaches) offer a new way to search these solution
spaces by effectively evaluating multiple possibilities in parallel and using interference to converge
on good solutions 64 . While current quantum devices can’t outperform classical optimizers on large
problems yet, research and small demonstrations show potential for better heuristics or speedups
on certain optimization tasks. Startups in this area often provide quantum optimization software
that integrates with classical data and uses quantum hardware (where available) to improve results.
Some also provide quantum-inspired algorithms – classical algorithms influenced by quantum
techniques (like simulated annealing analogs of quantum annealing) that can outperform standard
approaches even before true quantum advantage is reached.

12
 • ~25% of quantum software startups focus on data/network security and cryptography
solutions 63 . This includes quantum-enhanced cryptography, quantum random number
generation services, and applying quantum algorithms in cybersecurity (like using quantum
properties for secure communications, or developing post-quantum cryptography tools). There’s a
significant interest in quantum random number generators (QRNGs) which use quantum
processes to produce truly random numbers (useful for encryption keys). Also, startups are building
software for quantum key distribution (QKD) network management, and for integrating post-
quantum encryption algorithms into existing systems. Another aspect is using quantum algorithms
to detect patterns in cybersecurity (for example, quantum machine learning might eventually detect
certain cyber threats faster). The report specifically notes that inherent quantum properties like
randomness and entanglement are being exploited to create “hack-proof systems” 65 – a nod to
the idea that quantum-based encryption (QKD) combined with classical post-quantum algorithms
could secure communications against even quantum-enabled adversaries.

Some concrete examples of quantum applications in use or development today:

• Quantum Simulation for Chemistry: Replacing or augmenting classical computational chemistry

packages with quantum algorithms to calculate molecular energies or reaction rates. For instance,
simulating a small protein or a new material’s electronic properties. This is already pursued by major
chemical and pharma companies in partnership with quantum startups.

• Optimization in Finance: Quantum algorithms that can solve portfolio optimization (maximizing
return for given risk) faster or find new arbitrage opportunities by quickly evaluating combinations.
Financial institutions are experimenting with these on small scales.

• Machine Learning/AI: Quantum machine learning algorithms (like variational quantum classifiers)
that might find patterns in data with fewer data or detect subtle correlations. This is still
experimental, but many startups are exploring the intersection of quantum computing and AI.

• Quantum-Enhanced Security: Using quantum-generated keys for encryption (via QRNGs) or QKD
for securing communication lines between data centers or within critical infrastructure (banks,
government facilities). Several companies have deployed early QKD networks (e.g., between city
government offices or in telecom networks) as pilot projects.

The key point is that quantum software will likely deliver value well before large-scale quantum
hardware arrives 66 67 . Many algorithms being developed are hybrid – they run partly on classical
computers and delegate certain subroutines to a quantum processor. This way, even NISQ-era (Noisy
Intermediate-Scale Quantum) machines with tens or hundreds of qubits can be used for practical tasks by
combining them with classical processing. For example, a quantum computer might evaluate a complex
quantum sub-problem (like the behavior of a molecule) and feed results to a classical optimizer that handles
the higher-level decision-making.

Over the next 10 years, expect to see quantum computing software in niche use-cases where it can provide
an edge, even if small. As hardware improves, these use-cases will broaden. The report suggests that
investing in or focusing on quantum software and algorithms is a smart near-term strategy, because
they require less capital and can run on early hardware, starting to generate revenue and user adoption

13
sooner 67 . By the time fault-tolerant hardware arrives, the companies with robust software libraries and
domain know-how will be in a strong position.

Quantum Cryptography: Securing the Quantum Era

Classical encryption methods (like RSA and ECC) are threatened by quantum computing because of
algorithms like Shor’s that could break them. Therefore, quantum technologies are not only about
computing power but also about security. The report highlights a “twin” approach to future cybersecurity:
Quantum Key Distribution (QKD) and Post-Quantum Cryptography (PQC) working in tandem 68 .

• Quantum Key Distribution (QKD): QKD is a method to share encryption keys between two parties
with unconditional security guaranteed by quantum physics. It typically uses entangled photon pairs
or single photons sent over an optical fiber (or even free space via satellites). The idea is that if any
eavesdropper tries to intercept the quantum signals, the quantum state collapses or disturbances
occur, which can be detected by the legitimate parties. The report explains it succinctly: two users
share pairs of entangled photons and measure them to obtain a shared random key; no
information is actually transmitted through the fiber that can be intercepted – the key is
generated inherently by the correlated outcomes 69 . If an eavesdropper looks at the photons, it
introduces detectable errors in the correlations, alerting the users to discard that key 70 . Thus, QKD
can create an unhackable communication link protected by the laws of quantum mechanics 71 .
The limitation of QKD is that it requires specialized hardware (photon sources, detectors, often
dedicated fiber or line-of-sight for satellites), and it generally only provides a way to exchange keys
(not to send general data itself quantumly). Once keys are exchanged, they’re used to encrypt actual
messages (which still travel classically).

• Post-Quantum Cryptography (PQC): PQC refers to new cryptographic algorithms (for encryption,
digital signatures, etc.) that are designed to be secure against quantum attacks but can run on
classical computers. These are typically based on mathematical problems believed to be hard even
for quantum algorithms – for example, lattice-based cryptography, hash-based signatures,
multivariate quadratic equations, etc. Unlike QKD, PQC doesn’t require new hardware – it’s
implemented in software and can replace RSA/ECC in protocols. The report notes that PQC “offers
algorithmic resistance to attacks from quantum computers, while being deployable on classical
hardware” 70 . Governments and organizations worldwide are now in the process of standardizing
PQC (e.g., NIST in the US has selected candidate algorithms for standardization).

Convergence of QKD and PQC: These two approaches are complementary. QKD is ideal for securing
communication channels with theoretically perfect secrecy, but it’s limited by distance and infrastructure.
PQC is more easily deployed widely (just update software), but like any classical crypto, it relies on unproven
hardness assumptions (it’s believed quantum computers can’t break it, but that’s not guaranteed in the way
QKD’s security is guaranteed by physics). Together, they can provide a coordinated defense: PQC
algorithms protect most data and can be retrofitted into classical networks, while QKD can be used for the
most sensitive links and perhaps to frequently refresh keys used by those PQC algorithms. In essence, PQC
protects against future quantum code-breakers using mathematics, and QKD protects by using
quantum physics itself – the combination covers both bases. The report indeed concludes that together
these twin technologies offer a path to an “unhackable” communication network for the quantum age
71 .

14
The urgency is underscored by risk assessments: The Global Risk Institute estimates a 17–34% chance that
a quantum computer capable of breaking RSA-2048 will exist by 2034 72 . If such a machine appears, any
data encrypted with current methods becomes vulnerable (even retroactively, as adversaries may be storing
encrypted data now to decrypt later). This has pushed governments to act now. For example, the U.S. is
planning a major transition to post-quantum encryption for government systems – $7.1 billion is
earmarked between 2025 and 2035 to upgrade sensitive government communications to PQC algorithms
73 .

Advancements in Quantum-Secure Networks: The report mentions impressive progress in extending

QKD over long distances using satellites. Notably, China’s “Micius” satellite demonstrated intercontinental
QKD in 2020 over 1,200 km links 74 . China’s plans by 2025 include deploying a whole fleet: 12 medium-
earth orbit (MEO) satellites for transcontinental quantum links and 72 low-earth orbit (LEO) satellites for
regional coverage, plus 40+ ground stations 74 . This essentially would create a global quantum satellite
network for secure key exchange. The US is not far behind: the Pentagon’s 2025 roadmap includes
spending $2.1 billion on 12 quantum satellites and portable QKD terminals 75 .

On the technology side, photonic integration is bringing quantum communication hardware to chip-scale.
For instance, Toshiba developed a QKD module on a 3×5 mm photonic chip, integrating what used to be
tabletop optics into a tiny form factor 76 . This achieved a 400× size reduction from prior setups. Even more
critically, it’s manufactured with 300mm wafer CMOS processes, hinting at affordable mass production. This
could allow QKD technology to be embedded into standard telecom equipment – think 5G base stations or
IoT devices that come with built-in quantum key sharing capabilities 77 . The implication is that within a
decade, we might have widespread deployment of quantum-secured links alongside classical networks. The
report gives a snapshot metric: in 2024 the max distance for QKD was ~1,200 km (via satellite), and by 2030
we envision “global mesh networks” of QKD spanning the planet 78 . Meanwhile, the performance
overhead of PQC (which today might be 5× slower than RSA in some cases due to larger key sizes) is
projected to reduce to about 1.2× RSA overhead by 2030 78 , meaning PQC algorithms will be nearly as
efficient as current crypto, smoothing the transition.

In summary, quantum cryptography is a vital part of the quantum tech landscape, ensuring that as
quantum computers grow in power, our information remains secure. Startups in this space (like QNu Labs
in India, discussed later) are pioneering QKD devices, quantum random number generators, and secure
platforms, often aiming to protect sectors like banking, government, and defense. Adopting QKD and PQC
in tandem is increasingly seen as the prudent strategy for “crypto-agility” – being prepared for the day when
quantum hacking becomes feasible.

Quantum Computing Industry Landscape and Startups

Big Tech’s Quantum Ambitions

Major technology companies have entered the quantum race, investing vast resources to develop quantum
computers and software. Industry leaders like Google, IBM, Microsoft, and Amazon (AWS) are all actively
pursuing quantum computing R&D 79 . Their goal is to achieve quantum supremacy (or more usefully,

15
quantum advantage) and ultimately secure a dominant position in what they anticipate will be a
transformative computing industry. For example:

• Google has built superconducting processors (Bristlecone, Sycamore, and beyond), and famously
demonstrated a quantum supremacy experiment in 2019. In the report, a recent Google processor
named “Willow” is mentioned as completing a task in 5 minutes that would take $10^{25}$ years on
the best classical supercomputer 80 – an astounding (if specialized) showcase of quantum power.
Google continues to refine its qubits and quantum error correction techniques, aiming for a useful
error-corrected quantum computer in the coming years.

• IBM has a broad roadmap with superconducting qubits as well, offering cloud access to ever-larger
chips (they unveiled a 127-qubit processor in 2021, a 433-qubit in 2022, and plan >1,000 qubit
devices soon). IBM invests not only in hardware but also in software (Qiskit) and in building an
ecosystem with partners and academia.

• Microsoft has taken a unique approach focusing on topological qubits (though they haven’t
demonstrated them yet as of 2025). Meanwhile, Microsoft provides the Azure Quantum cloud
platform, which gives access to other companies’ hardware (ion traps, superconducting, etc.) and
offers tools for quantum software development.

• Amazon Web Services (AWS) similarly doesn’t have its own hardware tech (publicly), but it has the
Amazon Braket service providing cloud access to multiple quantum devices from various startups.
Amazon is also rumored to be researching superconducting qubits and other methods in-house (the
report shows Amazon committed ~$300M, possibly in quantum R&D or investments) 81 .

These giants have in-house research teams, academic collaborations, and significant funding. For
instance, IBM’s cumulative investment in quantum is estimated at over $2.3 billion 82 , and Google around
$700 million (not counting their massive computing infrastructure) 83 . Microsoft’s spending (including on
topological research and Azure Quantum) is on the order of $1.3 billion 84 . These figures, cited in the
report, illustrate that building a quantum computer is not cheap – but these companies can afford long-
term moonshots.

Is this an opening for startups? Interestingly, the report suggests that the approach taken by these big
players – full-stack development with very high budgets – may not be best for startups 85 . Startups typically
cannot pour hundreds of millions per year into quantum R&D with no immediate return. Instead, they need
strategies to survive and create value in the shorter term while the technology matures. This leads to the
discussion on tailoring a quantum strategy for startups.

Strategies for Quantum Startups (Surviving the “Deep Tech Valley of Death”)

“Deep tech” ventures like quantum computing face what’s often called a valley of death: long development
timelines, high burn rates, and skeptical investors who won’t see returns for many years. To navigate this,
the report offers advice for startups in quantum 86 87 :

• Aim for Hybrid Solutions: Instead of chasing “standalone quantum supremacy” (i.e. trying to
build a quantum computer that beats classical ones at all costs), startups should focus on
technologies that can integrate with today’s classical systems 86 . For instance, developing quantum

16
 algorithms that run alongside classical HPC (high-performance computing) can yield benefits sooner.
Or creating hardware that works in a hybrid mode (like quantum accelerators attached to classical
computers). This way, even if the quantum part is not overwhelmingly powerful yet, it can be
combined with classical compute to solve real problems. By ensuring compatibility with classical
infrastructure, a startup can address current market needs and gradually ramp up the quantum
component as it matures.

• Niche Applications First: Identify specific domains where quantum computing can provide a clear
advantage early (in the NISQ era) and target those. The report suggests areas like drug discovery,
materials science, finance, and logistics as promising niches 88 89 . These are domains where
certain problems (e.g. molecular simulation, portfolio optimization, route planning) are both very
valuable and computationally challenging, making them good candidates for quantum acceleration.
By focusing on a niche, startups can develop deep expertise and tailor their solutions to real user
requirements, rather than trying to be a general-purpose quantum solution too soon.

• Clear Technical and Business Milestones: Because the ultimate goal (a large-scale quantum
computer) might be a decade away, startups need intermediate milestones to show progress and
attract continued investment 90 . These could be technical achievements (e.g. demonstrating a new
qubit with 2× longer coherence, or a prototype algorithm that outperforms classical for a small case)
and business achievements (e.g. signing pilot customers, securing patents). Transparency in
progress is highlighted – being honest about where the technology stands and showing incremental
improvements builds credibility 87 . For example, reducing an error rate or increasing qubit count
step by step, and communicating that clearly, can maintain investor confidence.

• Forge Partnerships: Collaborating with universities, government labs, and corporate R&D
partnerships can provide startups access to resources they otherwise couldn’t afford 91 . A startup
might partner with a national lab to use a cleanroom for chip fabrication, or join a government
program that provides funding and facilities (like a quantum tech hub or incubator). Universities
supply talent and sometimes IP. Corporate partners might provide testbeds or be early adopters of
the tech. Such public-private partnerships and alliances can help with the expensive parts of
quantum development (e.g. access to a dilution fridge or a fab) and validate the startup’s approach.

• Leverage Government Programs and Grants: Given the strategic importance of quantum, many
governments offer grants, contracts, or infrastructure support for quantum tech development.
Startups should tap into these non-dilutive funding sources. The Indian government’s National
Quantum Mission, for instance, has provisions to fund joint projects between startups and research
institutions 92 . Securing a government contract (like QNu Labs did with the Indian Navy for QKD
systems 93 ) not only provides funding but also a strong use-case validation.

• Focus on Enabling Technologies: If building a full quantum computer is out of reach, consider
focusing on a piece of the puzzle that’s essential and can be sold to others in the field. For instance,
developing a high-precision quantum measurement device, a quantum-compatible chip
interconnect, or error-correction software that could work across multiple hardware types. These are
things that can be monetized by selling to bigger players or integrating into others’ systems,
providing revenue while contributing to the ecosystem.

17
 • Address the Talent Challenge: Quantum tech requires very specialized skills (quantum physics,
cryogenics, etc.). Startups should build a team that combines scientific expertise with engineering
and commercialization skill. Partnering with academic experts or training new graduates in practical
development can fill talent gaps. Also, having advisors from the scientific community can lend
credibility.

• Prepare for the Long Haul: Even with all the above, quantum startups need patience and a
convincing narrative for investors that the wait will be worth it. Emphasizing the transformative
potential and the eventual payoff (being a leader in a trillion-dollar industry) is part of securing long-
term backing. In the meantime, controlling burn rate and perhaps offering interim products (like
quantum-inspired software that can be sold now) can sustain the company.

The report specifically mentions the “deep tech valley of death”, referring to the difficult phase where R&D
is high and revenue is low 94 . By integrating into real-world applications early (even if quantum provides
only a small advantage at first) and by systematically de-risking the technology, startups can make it
through this valley.

Notable Quantum Startups – Success Stories and Innovations

The BLUprint report shines a spotlight on several global startups that are making significant strides in the
quantum field, illustrating the diverse approaches and innovations. Here are a few highlighted examples:

• Rigetti Computing (USA) – Founded 2013, Berkeley, California. Rigetti is a trailblazer among quantum
startups, building full-stack superconducting quantum computers. They developed their own
quantum chips and even a quantum integrated circuit foundry to fabricate them, enabling faster
R&D cycles by iterating in-house 95 . Rigetti’s technology innovation includes a unique multi-chip
architecture for scaling: they demonstrated 3D integration (stacking chips) and high-density signal
delivery to qubits, which aims to overcome the wiring limits as qubit counts grow 96 . They provide
quantum computing both on-premises (selling or leasing QPUs to labs and clients) and via cloud
access (they are integrated into AWS Braket and other platforms) 97 . Rigetti has raised significant
funding (~$198 million as of the report) and even went public via SPAC, though it faces challenges in
catching up to larger competitors. Market role: Rigetti positions itself to monetize quantum by
offering its processors through cloud services and direct sales, targeting early enterprise and
government adopters 98 . One challenge noted is achieving sustainable revenue – quantum is still in
R&D phase for most clients, so widespread commercial use (and thus big revenue) is not yet there.
Nonetheless, Rigetti’s early start and technological moat (its own fab and IP) give it a strategic edge,
although it must continue improving qubit count and quality to stay relevant.

• Riverlane (UK) – Founded 2017, Cambridge, UK. Riverlane is focusing on the critical problem of
quantum error correction (QEC). They are not building a quantum computer per se, but rather the
tools to make any quantum computer scalable by handling errors. A key innovation is their
“Quantum Error Decoder” chip (Deltaflow), a dedicated hardware chip that can process error
syndrome data from a quantum processor in real-time and correct errors on the fly 99 100 .
Essentially, Riverlane is building the classical processing side that’s fast and efficient enough to keep
up with a quantum processor’s error stream. They aim to support scaling quantum operations from
a few qubits to millions without failure 101 . Their stack includes software and hardware for QEC that
could work with multiple qubit technologies (superconducting, ion traps, etc.), which means if they

18
 succeed, their solution could become an industry-wide standard for error correction 100 .
Riverlane has raised about $122 million (Series C) with investors including university funds and
government initiatives, reflecting the high interest in solving error correction. If their universal QEC
solution works across different quantum hardware, it’s a “rare and valuable gem” – potentially every
quantum hardware maker would need it 100 . This would allow Riverlane to have a perpetual
revenue stream by licensing their QEC technology if it becomes fundamental to achieving fault-
tolerance. As of the report, their Deltaflow-2 was demonstrated to perform real-time error correction
on up to 250 physical qubits 102 , a promising step. Riverlane exemplifies a startup taking a picks-
and-shovels approach: rather than competing in making qubits, they make something all qubit-
makers will need.

• QNu Labs (India) – Founded 2016, Bangalore, India. QNu Labs is India’s pioneering startup in
quantum cryptography and communication. They develop hardware products like QKD systems
and Quantum Random Number Generators (QRNGs), along with a software platform to integrate
these into existing security infrastructure 103 . Essentially, QNu is providing end-to-end quantum-
safe security solutions. Their hardware modules generate quantum keys and random numbers, and
their software ensures these can be used easily by businesses for encryption. They also work on
post-quantum crypto integration (NIST-compliant PQC solutions) for a layered defense 104 . With
funding around $15.2 million (seed/early stage) 105 , they’ve managed significant milestones –
notably, QNu Labs secured a contract with the Indian Navy to deploy quantum encryption systems
for secure communications 93 . This is a big validation, as defense is a prime customer for quantum
security. QNu’s market focus is broad: banking, healthcare, data centers – anywhere that needs
improved data protection can use their products 106 . India’s government prioritizing quantum
communications (through the National Quantum Mission) means companies like QNu stand to
benefit from larger projects (like securing critical infrastructure, or anti-counterfeiting systems and
secure voting machines, as mentioned) 107 . Challenges for QNu include expanding use-cases for
their tech in a country where quantum awareness is just growing, but being an early mover with a
working product gives them a strong foothold.

• QpiAI (India) – Founded 2019, Bangalore, India. QpiAI is an example of a startup combining quantum
computing with AI (Artificial Intelligence). They are developing their own quantum hardware –
specifically scalable spin qubit-based quantum processors (quantum dots) – and the associated
cryogenic control chips 108 . They’ve announced a 25-qubit prototype quantum computer (using spin
qubits) as their flagship, along with an AI-enabled control system that can manage various types of
qubits with ultra-low latency feedback (<100 ns) 109 . This fast feedback could help with error
mitigation by quickly adjusting controls, and it shows how they integrate AI for stabilizing qubit
performance. QpiAI’s idea is to vertically integrate: quantum hardware plus AI software to deliver
solutions in different industries. They raised about $11.3 million (seed funding) 110 . The applications
they target include predictive analytics in manufacturing, risk assessment in finance, portfolio
optimization, AI-driven drug discovery, and other simulation tasks 111 . Essentially, they want to
apply quantum + AI to a variety of industry problems, presumably by leveraging quantum
computing where it offers speedups and AI for tasks around it. The challenge here is twofold:
technically, integrating a nascent quantum processor with AI and making it outperform classical
solutions is very difficult; and commercially, convincing industries to adopt these hybrid quantum-AI
solutions will require proving clear value (which is tough while quantum tech is still early) 111 . The
report notes skepticism from industry and the need for clear value propositions 111 . Nonetheless,

19
 QpiAI demonstrates ambition – being one of the few Indian startups attempting hardware (spin
qubits) and merging it with AI, which could position them uniquely if successful.

These examples illustrate that quantum startups globally are tackling different layers: from hardware
and chips (Rigetti, QpiAI) to error-correction and software (Riverlane) to applications like security (QNu).
They also highlight a trend: many promising startups are those addressing a specific gap or opportunity (like
Riverlane with error correction, or QNu with quantum-safe security) rather than trying to do everything at
once.

Why So Few Failures (So Far)?

One might expect that many quantum startups would fail given the technical hurdles, but the report
surprisingly notes that fewer than 10% of quantum startups have shut down to date 112 . This could be
because the field is still young and many companies are sustained by research grants or patient capital.
However, it does list a few that did not make it, with lessons to learn from each 113 114 :

• SeQureNet (France, 2008–2017): A spin-off focused on continuous-variable QKD (quantum key

distribution) over long distances 115 . It launched somewhat ahead of its time – the market (telecom
providers, etc.) wasn’t ready to adopt quantum cryptography widely in the early 2010s. Despite being
part of EU research projects, its potential customers didn’t yet feel the urgency for QKD. It eventually
was too early for market maturity and closed (though its tech and team partly evolved into other
efforts). Lesson: Timing is crucial; even good tech can fail if the ecosystem isn’t ready.

• Zapata Computing (USA, 2017–2024): Zapata initially built a quantum-classical hybrid software
platform (Orquestra) for enterprise use-cases in chemistry, logistics, etc. 116 . As quantum hardware
progress was slower than hype, Zapata pivoted more into classical enterprise AI/ML solutions
(basically rebranding as Zapata AI). It attempted a SPAC merger (like some quantum companies did
around 2021–2022), but that fell through. By 2024, it essentially had moved away from quantum.
Lesson: A pivot away from quantum can happen if revenue is slow; also, the challenges of going
public via SPAC without strong revenue became apparent (several high-profile quantum SPACs
struggled). Zapata’s journey shows how a quantum startup might try to survive by leveraging its
software for classical problems, but then loses its unique edge (and investor interest) when it’s no
longer a “quantum” company.

• Black Brane Systems (Canada, 2017–2024): This startup aimed to do something in quantum
machine learning. It raised some undisclosed funding but operated in stealth and had no clear
break-through 117 . The report suggests it lacked strong quantum physics expertise and perhaps a
clear business model. It struggled to find paying customers and remained too secretive/closed,
which may have deterred partners and investors. It shut down quietly. Lesson: In deep tech, you
need either a deep technical USP or strong support; just riding hype without transparency or
substance can fail. Also, quantum machine learning is a field where results are very researchy still;
without a niche or clear plan, it’s hard to sustain.

• NextGenQ (France, 2019–2021): A short-lived company focusing on quantum machine learning as

well 118 . It got some funding but likely couldn’t demonstrate progress quickly or found the problem
of marrying quantum with ML too difficult to commercialize at that time. It closed within two years.

20
 Lesson: Very early-stage tech companies might fold quickly if initial research milestones fall short or
if funding dries up due to lack of immediate results.

• Atomtronics (Italy, ~2015): This was an effort around “atomtronic circuits” – using ultra-cold atoms
in optical lattices to simulate circuits 119 . It’s a highly experimental concept (even within quantum
tech) and extremely hard to commercialize. It likely remained a scientific curiosity with no
marketable product and thus didn’t turn into a sustainable company. Lesson: Some quantum ideas
are too far from application; a startup built solely on a cool experiment without a path to a product is
unlikely to succeed.

Overall, these cases show that the majority of quantum startups have managed to persist so far,
possibly due to the high interest and funding in the field, but those that failed often did so either because
they were too early for the market, lacked a clear value proposition, or didn’t have the right expertise/
strategy. As the industry matures, more shakeout could happen, but as of 2025 the ecosystem is still
expanding with new startups and most existing ones pivoting or finding support rather than outright
shutting down.

Investment Trends in Quantum Technology

Quantum computing has attracted significant investment, especially in the last few years. The report
provides a detailed look at funding trends:

• Global Funding Growth: In 2024 alone, about $2 billion of venture funding went into quantum
computing worldwide 120 . This continued influx of capital indicates investor confidence that
quantum tech, while long-term, will eventually pay off. Cumulatively, tens of billions have been
invested in the sector across startups and corporate R&D. However, it’s noted that over 60% of all
quantum computing investments have occurred 2021 onwards 121 . So this industry is really in its
early stages of investment cycles – a lot of money poured in recently (some of it through public
markets via SPAC mergers around 2021–2022, e.g., IonQ, D-Wave, Rigetti all went public via SPAC,
raising large sums).

• Unicorns and Exits: The industry is still nascent enough that there are fewer than 10 unicorns
(startups valued over $1B) in quantum 122 . Known examples of unicorns would include companies
like PsiQuantum, IonQ, maybe Xanadu, etc., and some that went public (though valuations have
fluctuated). There have been no major exits (like big acquisitions or sustained public market
successes) yet – meaning investors have not seen returns, and they might not for a while. The report
suggests we might only see clear outcomes (like successful IPOs with solid revenue or large
acquisitions) 8 or more years from now 123 when the technology has matured enough to generate
significant revenue. This underscores the patience required for quantum investments.

• Pace of Funding Rounds: One interesting metric given is the median time between funding rounds
for quantum startups: ~2.1 years from founding to seed, ~2.4 years from Seed to Series A, ~2.16
years from A to B, and ~1.33 years from B to C 124 . This suggests that early on, it takes a couple
years to gestate a concept and get seed funding, then a bit longer to show progress for Series A.
Interestingly, the time from Series B to C is shorter (~1.3 years), possibly because once a company

21
 has reached Series B, the field is hot and investors are more eager to double down quickly (or that
companies raise smaller increments earlier and then a big jump at C relatively faster). It indicates an
acceleration in later-stage funding as of the data – perhaps reflecting that from around 2020 to 2023,
a number of startups quickly went from B to C as large amounts of capital became available (e.g.,
through government programs or SPACs, etc.). In any case, the typical ~2 year cadence between
rounds for early stages is a bit longer than in some software sectors (where rounds might happen
yearly or even faster), reflecting that quantum startups need time for technical milestones.

• Which Technologies Attract Funding: Superconducting qubit companies have historically drawn
the most investment – this is the most “mature” quantum tech and includes the early heavy hitters.
The report notes that superconducting quantum computing “remains the most advanced and matured
technology with highest investments done till date.” 125 Many startups in this area were founded earlier
(mid-2010s), and several have gone public or raised large rounds. For instance:

• D-Wave (Canada, annealing with superconducting tech) raised around $300M privately and then
about $500M via SPAC, total ~$800M 126 .
• Rigetti (USA, superconducting) raised ~$200M privately and ~$260M via SPAC, ~$656M total 127 .
• IQM (Finland, superconducting) has raised significant funds in Europe (their Series A/B were tens of
millions).
• Quantum Circuits Inc (QCI) (USA, superconducting from Yale) got funding too (not as high profile).
• Oxford Quantum Circuits (OQC) (UK, superconducting) raised a notable Series A (~£38M).
• Big corporations pouring in R&D aren’t “investments” in the VC sense, but they matter: e.g., IBM
$2.3B internal 82 , Google ~$700M internal, Intel at least $300M internal for spin qubits 128 ,
Microsoft $1.3B+ for their approach 84 .

Because of the heavy early R&D and patents in superconducting tech, the report suggests new
superconducting-focused startups will face high barriers – lots of capital needed, plus competing
against established players and their IP portfolios 125 . That doesn’t mean none will try, but venture
investors might be more hesitant to fund a “new Rigetti” now, unless it has a truly novel approach.

Other modalities also have seen big investments: - Trapped Ion startups: IonQ (USA) stands out, having
raised ~$84M privately then going public via SPAC raising ~$636M, totaling $736M 82 . Quantinuum
(formed by Honeywell + Cambridge Quantum) got a commitment of $300M from Honeywell initially and
later external funding, pegging it around $800M invested 127 . Smaller trapped ion players (AQT, Alpine
Quantum, Universal Quantum) have also raised significant but smaller rounds. - Photonic startups:
PsiQuantum (USA) is one of the top-funded, with around $820M raised 126 (its goal is a million-qubit
photonic machine). Xanadu (Canada) has raised around $235M 129 . Quix (Netherlands), Quandela
(France), ORCA Computing (UK), TuringQ (China) etc., have raised smaller rounds (from a few million up to
tens of millions). - Neutral Atom startups: Pasqal (France) raised about $100M+ (series B) which is noted as
$140M in the report 130 . QuEra (USA) had raised ~$17M seed, later more (report hints at it under “Others”
in Atom category). ColdQuanta (USA, now renamed Infleqtion) which does cold atom tech (both computing
and sensing) raised $110M (noted $183M including recent rounds) 128 . - Quantum Dot / Spin qubit
startups: Diraq (Australia) got a large grant + VC (report mentions an Australian government deal included,
possibly the $70M package for Silicon Quantum Computing (SQC) and Diraq) 131 . Silicon Quantum
Computing (SQC) (Australia) raised about $83M AUD plus got government backing, report shows $133M
132 . Equal1 (Ireland) raised a smaller sum (~$10M) but noted in report. Quantum Motion (UK) raised

~£50M (not explicitly in report but likely included in “Quantum Motion” listing). - Topological: not many

22
startups (mostly Microsoft’s domain). But the report lists Microsoft $1345M (internal spend) 84 . Also,
Amazon $300M (perhaps their allocated budget for quantum R&D or investment arm) 133 .

From these, one can see the largest single private investments have been in PsiQuantum (~$800M,
photonic), Quantinuum (~$300M from Honeywell plus others), IonQ (~$700M via SPAC), D-Wave (~$300M +
SPAC $500M), Rigetti (~$200M + SPAC $250M), Xanadu ($100M+), Pasqal ($100M), etc. So superconducting
and photonic ventures got huge funding, as did Ion traps, while other areas like neutral atoms and spin
qubits are catching up recently.

• Investor Caution and Selectivity: As more money has gone in, investors are becoming aware that
this is a long game. The report’s timeline for investing focus suggests that in the next 0–5 years,
venture capital will likely favor software and enabling tech (which have nearer-term payoff), whereas
the deep hardware bets (like building a fault-tolerant quantum computer or a full quantum network)
will be funded but in a more selective way 134 135 . In 5–10 years, as broad quantum advantage
becomes plausible, we might see another surge of investment in the more hardware-intensive
projects, and 10+ years from now, if quantum computing starts disrupting industries, those early big
hardware investments could pay off massively 136 67 .

• Barriers to Entry: One takeaway for investment is that some subfields have high barriers now (like
superconducting, with established players and high capital needs), so new startups there are rarer.
Instead, new startups might focus on emerging areas or supporting tech. For example, if someone
comes up with a novel room-temperature qubit idea that’s very different, they might attract new
funding. Or startups will concentrate on software, error correction, or specific hardware components
(like quantum memory, or specialized sensors).

• Corporate and Government Role: Beyond VC, a lot of investment in quantum comes from
government funding and corporate R&D. Governments worldwide have collectively committed $58
billion across 29 national quantum initiatives 137 – these funds often support startups indirectly via
grants or collaborative projects, as well as training the workforce. Big companies investing in
quantum (as detailed above) also inject money into the ecosystem (through acquisitions,
partnerships, or simply competition for talent).

In summary, quantum tech investment is characterized by rapid growth since 2020, large bets on a
few leading startups, and a recognition that returns will take time. The field is moving from a phase of
exploratory funding (lots of small seeds) to one where later-stage capital is available for those showing
progress (Series B, C, and even going public via SPAC). The next decade will reveal which bets pay off and
whether the valuations are justified as technology hurdles are overcome.

Government Initiatives and National Quantum Programs

Governments around the globe view quantum technology as strategically vital – both for economic
leadership and national security. By 2025, 29 countries (plus the EU) have launched dedicated national
quantum initiatives, collectively investing over $58 billion in quantum research and development 137 .

23
These programs fund academic research, workforce development, and sometimes directly support startups
or industry projects. Here’s a rundown of some major national efforts:

• China: Leads in scale with an estimated $25 billion (or more) committed to quantum technology
138 . China’s investments span building national labs (like the Hefei National Quantum Lab), satellite

QKD networks (Micius and planned constellations), and quantum computing prototypes. China
considers quantum a key area in its 5-year plans and is pouring money into both fundamental
research and applications (like secure communications for government). The sheer size of China’s
funding (nearly half the global total in some counts) underscores its ambition to be a quantum
superpower.

• United States: The U.S. has a coordinated effort through the National Quantum Initiative (NQI),
which started with a $1.2B authorization in 2018, but various agencies (DOE, NSF, DoD) have since
allocated more. The report cites about $3.7 billion for the U.S. 139 , which likely includes multi-year
research funding plus defense spending on quantum. The U.S. approach involves funding research
centers (e.g., NSF Quantum Institutes, DOE QIS centers), and heavy investments by agencies like
DARPA and NASA in quantum sensing and computing. Additionally, the CHIPS and Science Act in
2022 authorized more funding for quantum research. The U.S. also focuses on PQC transition (as
mentioned, $7.1B planned for government PQC upgrades) and quantum networking development.

• European Union and Europe: The EU launched a €1 billion Quantum Flagship program
(2018-2028) focusing on research in computing, communication, and sensing. In addition to that,
individual European countries have their own programs. For example:

• Germany committed around €2 billion (about $2.4B) in 2020 for quantum computing R&D, plus
additional funding bringing it to ~$5.9B when including all initiatives 140 . Germany is funding two
quantum computer consortia (one with IBM, one with IQM), and investing in quantum
communication infrastructure.
• France announced a €1.8B ($2.0B) Quantum Plan in 2021 for 5 years, covering everything from
computers to sensors to post-quantum crypto. (The scribd OCR had France as $52m which is
incorrect; it’s actually one of the larger programs around $1.8B.)
• UK has been running a National Quantum Technologies Programme since 2014, investing over £1
billion (~$1.2B) across two phases, and recently added another £2.5B (~$3B) planned over 10 years.
The report shows UK at $790M (probably reflecting early phases) 141 , but current commitments are
higher with new funding announced. The UK focuses on four hubs (in computing, sensing, imaging,
communications) and has a strong academic network.
• Russia had around $0.7B to $1B in planned spending (though its status after 2022 might be
uncertain).
• Netherlands invested at least €615M (~$700M) in Quantum Delta NL initiative 142 .
• Canada announced a National Quantum Strategy of CAD $360M (~$280M) in 2022, but the report
oddly lists $7.2B for Canada 143 , which seems like an OCR error or perhaps including provincial
investments or a long-term plan (maybe they counted 5 years repeatedly or in CAD? It’s likely a
mistake; known Canadian public funding is in the few hundred millions range, not billions).
• Japan has invested in its Quantum Basic Plan, perhaps on the order of $0.5–1B (the report shows
Japan $2.3B which seems high; Japan’s plan was ¥100B (~$0.9B) in 2020 for a quantum network and
computing). Possibly the report combined multiple programs or misaligned some numbers.

24
 • South Korea allocated $40M for a quantum computing center and more in coming years (~$0.5B
total expected), scribd shows $6.4B which might be misread (perhaps $0.64B?).
• Many smaller countries also have programs: Australia ($100M+ plus state funding, report shows
$865M 144 including recent investments like $100M in 2022 and an earlier $130M for Sydney
Quantum Academy, etc.), Singapore ($120M program, scribd shows $208M 145 ), Israel ($100M+
invested, scribd mis-reads as $1.8B likely an error – Israel’s program was $100M plus maybe more
recently), India ($1.0B announced, see below), Qatar ($200M, scribd shows $282M 146 ), Switzerland
($ ~$$, scribd $120M 138 ), Sweden, Finland, Denmark, Austria, Ireland, Spain, Italy, etc. have
various tens-of-millions to low-hundreds-of-millions programs. The variety is large – the report tallies
29 national initiatives, which includes many EU countries individually and others.

The key takeaway is that governments see quantum tech as a long-term strategic investment, akin to
the early days of space or nuclear research. They are funding basic science (like training PhDs, building
national labs or testbeds), as well as pushing for commercialization by funding startups or partnerships.
This public funding often complements private VC funding, especially for things VCs find too risky or far-out
(like fundamental physics research or building prototype hardware with no immediate market).

India’s National Quantum Mission and Ecosystem

India is highlighted specifically in the report, given the context of Blume Ventures being an Indian VC and
India launching its National Quantum Mission (NQM). Key points about India’s quantum landscape:

• Startup Distribution: India has 45+ known quantum startups as of early 2025 147 . A striking 67%
of them focus on application-layer software or services 148 . This aligns with India’s strengths in
software and IT. Only a handful (about 2 companies) are pursuing full-stack hardware (quantum
computers) 30 , and another ~2 focusing on quantum components/equipment 149 . The rest are
in between: ~12 in system software or middleware, ~20 in other services (consulting, training,
etc.) 150 151 . This means India’s quantum startup scene is heavily skewed towards software and
applications (areas requiring less capital and more human talent), while hardware efforts are very
limited. The report comments that the absence of multiple full-stack providers in India has limited
diversification in that category 152 – effectively, without a local hardware base, those interested in
hardware may lack local supply chain or collaboration opportunities, which could slow progress.

• Funding Stage: Of those ~45 startups, only ~30% have received funding (beyond maybe initial seed
grants) 147 . In fact, only one Indian quantum startup had raised a Series A round as of the report
147 – that is likely QpiAI, which raised $11.3M Series A (mentioned in the content) 153 . All others are

either at seed stage or still grant-funded/bootstrapped. This shows that India’s quantum startup
ecosystem is in a nascent phase with very few companies having substantial private investment.
Total private investment in Indian quantum startups was likely just a few tens of millions of dollars
(compared to billions globally). However, this is poised to change as the government and domestic
VCs become more involved.

• National Quantum Mission (NQM): Launched in 2023, NQM is India’s flagship program to boost
quantum technologies. It has a budget of ₹6000 crore (~$730 million) spread over 8 years (2023–
2031) 154 . The mission’s objectives include:

25
 • Developing Quantum Computers with 50–1000 physical qubits in 8 years 155 – which implies
creating at least intermediate-scale quantum processors indigenously (likely superconducting or
photonic, as those are explicitly mentioned) 156 .
• Quantum Communication infrastructure: Establishing a multi-nodal quantum network with
both fiber-optic QKD links and satellite-based QKD, for secure communications within India and also
between India and other countries 157 158 . This includes demonstration of inter-city QKD networks
and possibly a satellite QKD test.
• Four Thematic Hubs (T-Hubs): Setting up 4 centers focused on key areas: quantum computing,
quantum communication, quantum sensing & metrology, and quantum materials/devices 159 .
These hubs (likely at major research institutions like IITs or national labs) will coordinate R&D and act
as incubators for innovation in each sub-field. They are referred to as C-DoQ (Centers for
Development of Quantum), which will be R&D powerhouses under the mission 160 .
• Industry-Academia Projects: Funding joint projects between startups/companies and premier
research institutes (IITs, IISc, TIFR, etc.) 161 . This encourages technology translation – taking lab
results and turning them into prototypes or products with the help of commercial entities.
• Developing home-grown quantum hardware in two specific domains: superconducting qubits and
photonic qubits** 156 . This is notable; it signals the government’s priority to build at least one
prototype quantum computer based on superconducting tech (like Google/IBM style) and one based
on photonic (like PsiQuantum/Xanadu style). They likely chose these because superconducting is the
leading established tech, and photonics leverages India’s strength in photonics/optics research and
doesn’t require cryogenics (aside from detectors).
• Workforce and Research: Training PhDs and Postdoctoral researchers in quantum technologies,
through scholarships and new programs 162 . With >60% of quantum jobs requiring PhDs 163 , India
wants to leverage the fact it produces ~24,000 PhDs a year (across fields) 164 by channeling more of
that talent into quantum. HR development is explicitly part of the mission (8.8% of budget) 157 .

The budget allocation under NQM is broken down roughly as follows 160 154 :
- 40.6% to the C-DoQ (R&D hubs) – indicating a large chunk is going to building research centers and labs.
- 37.3% to Technology Development and Translation – likely the bucket for funding projects, prototypes,
perhaps grants to startups or industry partnerships.
- 9% to Startup Ecosystem – directly supporting startups (maybe via incubators, challenge grants, etc.) 165 .
- 8.8% to Human Resource Development – education, training programs, maybe sending students abroad,
etc. 166 .
- 3% to International Collaborations – partnering with other countries in quantum research, joint projects,
maybe joining things like the EU Quantum Flagship as an associate, etc. 154 .
- 1.3% to Mission Management Unit – administrative costs of running the mission.

This allocation shows India is putting the majority of funds into building core technology capability (labs,
hardware, projects) and a significant portion into people and startups. It’s a well-rounded plan to kickstart a
domestic quantum industry.

• India’s Strengths: The report is optimistic about India’s prospects. It notes that India had the 5th
highest number of quantum computing research papers in 2023 167 , reflecting a strong
foundation in academic research. Indian researchers are contributing significantly to global
quantum science, which is a good sign. Also, India’s large output of STEM graduates and PhDs
means there’s a talent pool that, if given the right training, can be converted into a quantum
workforce relatively quickly 164 . The idea is that many PhDs in physics or engineering could
specialize or retrain into quantum fields, and a lot of young talent can be channeled into new

26
 quantum programs at universities. The report suggests that with its academic institutions and
human capital, “India has a right to win in the quantum race” if it leverages these strengths 168 . To
capitalize on this, efforts need to be made to improve research infrastructure (so top talent stays in
India or collaborates globally) and to foster industry so that these trained individuals have
opportunities to innovate domestically.

• Challenges: While not directly stated, we can infer challenges: India currently lacks the advanced
fabrication facilities (like for superconducting qubits or cutting-edge photonic chips), so international
collaboration or significant investment will be needed to build those. Also, the startup funding gap
means that many ideas may not get off the ground without government support or greater VC
interest. The mission is addressing that partially by funding startups and joint projects. Another
challenge is coordination – aligning academia, government labs, and private sector to push toward
common goals (hence the thematic hubs and mission management unit).

In summary, India’s National Quantum Mission is a comprehensive push to go from a strong research
base to actual quantum technologies (computers, communications networks, sensors) made in India, within
about a decade. If successful, by 2030 India aims to have its own working quantum computer prototypes
(50-1000 qubits range), quantum-secured communication network linking cities and satellites, a thriving
cohort of startups and skilled professionals, and meaningful contributions to global quantum advances. It’s
an ambitious plan, reflecting the recognition that quantum tech could be as foundational in the 21st
century as space or atomic energy was in the 20th.

Future Outlook: Timeline to Quantum Advantage and Beyond

The journey toward practical, broad quantum advantage will be a gradual one. We can delineate it in
stages:

• Current Stage (2020s) – NISQ Era: We are in the era of Noisy Intermediate-Scale Quantum
devices – quantum processors with tens to a few hundred qubits that are not error-corrected. These
NISQ machines can perform certain tasks, but they are prone to errors and noise, limiting the
depth of algorithms they can run 169 . For most real-world problems, their results aren’t yet better
than classical methods, especially given the incredible progress in classical computing (including AI
and specialized hardware) which sets a high bar for performance 170 . In this era, we’ll see
quantum computers demonstrate special-purpose uses and continue to claim isolated quantum
supremacy milestones, but immediate commercial value remains limited to niche demonstrations or
quantum-inspired improvements in workflows. In other words, in the next few years, quantum
computers will coexist with classical supercomputers, sometimes accelerating parts of computations
or serving as testbeds for algorithms, but they won’t replace classical systems. The focus now is on
improving qubit quality (longer coherence, lower error rates) and architecture (coupling more
qubits together) while using current devices for prototyping algorithms.

• Near Future (next ~5–10 years, late 2020s to early 2030s) – Emergence of Quantum Advantage:
As hardware improves, we expect to reach “broad quantum advantage” – a point where quantum
computers can consistently outperform classical computers on useful problems 171 . This likely
requires hundreds to thousands of high-fidelity physical qubits, or equivalently a smaller number of

27
 logical (error-corrected) qubits. In this timeframe, error rates might drop and qubit counts rise to
where certain practical tasks in material discovery, optimization, risk modeling, etc. will start to
be solved faster or better by quantum computers than by any classical means 171 . Industries will
begin to see quantum breakthroughs: for instance, discovering a new drug by simulating a
molecule’s properties that classical methods missed, or optimizing a complex network in a way that
yields significant cost savings. The report suggests this broad advantage is expected in the next
decade (by around 2035) 171 . During this period, we’ll also see the integration of quantum
computing into enterprise workflows – maybe quantum computing as a cloud utility that
companies use for specific tasks, analogous to how GPUs are used today for AI.

• Long Term (10+ years, mid-2030s and beyond) – Fault-Tolerant Quantum Computing (FTQC): The
holy grail is a fully fault-tolerant quantum computer – one that uses quantum error correction to
run arbitrarily long circuits reliably, with thousands of logical qubits (which might mean millions of
physical qubits given overhead) 172 173 . Achieving FTQC means we can execute complex algorithms
like Shor’s factoring on large numbers, or simulate very large quantum systems, etc., without being
stopped by decoherence. The timeline for this is uncertain, but many experts target the 2035–2040
range for early fault-tolerant prototypes. Once this capability exists, disruption across many
industries truly kicks in 67 174 . A fault-tolerant quantum computer could solve problems that are
impossibly hard for classical supercomputers – for example, breaking current cryptography (thus the
urgency of PQC), or solving optimization problems of unprecedented scale, or enabling new physics/
materials research that yields revolutionary tech (like room-temp superconductors or efficient fusion
reactors via material design). Essentially, by late 2030s or 2040s, if quantum computing follows this
optimistic trajectory, we might regard it as an indispensable part of computing infrastructure, just as
we today rely on classical high-performance computing.

Challenges and Uncertainties: The report notes that the quantum wave is “even more unpredictable and
difficult to grasp than previous tech waves” 175 . There are scientific unknowns (will a new qubit type leapfrog
current ones? Will someone solve error correction more efficiently?), and engineering unknowns (can we
scale to millions of qubits, how to manufacture them?). So investors and stakeholders must carefully
evaluate claims – not every “breakthrough” announced is truly significant, and timelines can slip 176 . It’s
wise to maintain a bit of skepticism and demand evidence as companies announce progress, because hype
runs high in this field.

Investor Outlook by Horizon: The report actually lays out where investments are likely to focus in each
stage 134 135 : - In the 0–5 year horizon (now to ~2028), the “wins” will mostly be in software and early
hardware that can show some advantage. So we’ll see investment in quantum software startups (for
optimization, simulation, etc.) and hardware startups that offer something comparatively easier and
cheaper, like photonic or quantum dot qubits (which promise easier fabrication) 172 . We’ll also see growth in
quantum cloud services and platforms to make quantum access easier 173 . These areas can generate
revenue soon (software services, cloud access fees, etc.) before full-scale quantum arrives 67 . - In the 5–10
year horizon (2028–2033), as fault-tolerant prototypes start emerging, investment will gear more
towards enabling those: companies making quantum error-corrected hardware, quantum middleware,
and specific industry applications that could benefit as soon as quantum advantage hits 172 . Also,
quantum cryptography and secure communications will become mainstream around this time, so more
funds into QKD networks, etc. Essentially, this period is about scaling from early demo to practical systems,
so money goes into companies that can deliver bigger quantum machines or widely deploy quantum-safe
security, and those that tailor quantum solutions for industries like finance, logistics, energy, etc., ready to

28
plug in when hardware allows 177 . - In 10+ years (post-2033), once full-scale quantum computing is on
the table, that’s when it’s truly disruptive. Investments at that stage (for those thinking that far ahead) are
bets on the ultimate winners in hardware and a few dominant software players that will be analogous to the
“Intels and Microsofts” of the quantum era 67 . If you invested early in the right company, it could be highly
profitable then 174 , but by that time new investments would likely be buying into established players rather
than raw startups. The era of full-scale quantum will see consolidation, big industry players involved, and
quantum tech being part of critical infrastructure.

In sum, the road to quantum advantage and beyond is a multi-phase process: right now focusing on
making incremental gains and demonstrating value with small noisy systems, next decade reaching a
tipping point where quantum solutions start beating classical in key areas, and eventually achieving the
fully error-corrected machines that unlock the technology’s full revolutionary potential. Each phase comes
with different opportunities and strategies for companies and investors.

One thing is clear: quantum computing is not a sprint, but a marathon. It requires sustained R&D, clever
interim solutions, and ecosystem building (talent, supply chains, user adoption). The report’s
comprehensive view – from principles to startups to national agendas – illustrates that success in quantum
will involve the interplay of science, engineering, business strategy, and policy. Those preparing for exams
or careers in this field should grasp not just the technical concepts, but also the market and ecosystem
context, as quantum technology moves from lab to real world.

Glossary of Key Quantum Terms (Simplified)

Finally, here is a quick-reference “quantum lingo decoder” inspired by the report 178 179 , explaining
common quantum computing terms in beginner-friendly language:

• Qubit: The basic unit of quantum information. Imagine flipping a coin that stays in both heads and tails
at the same time until you look at it – that’s a qubit (it’s in a superposition of 0 and 1) 7 . Only when
you measure it does it decide on heads or tails (0 or 1).

• Superposition: When a quantum system exists in multiple states simultaneously. It’s like being in two
places at once 8 . A qubit in superposition of 0 and 1 has some probability of being 0 and some of
being 1, until measured. This property is what gives quantum computers their parallelism.

• Entanglement: A special link between qubits where changing one instantly affects the other, no
matter how far apart they are. It’s as if two coins are magically connected such that if one is heads, the
other is guaranteed to be tails (or heads too, depending on how they’re entangled). Einstein called this
“spooky action at a distance” 9 . Entanglement is crucial for quantum algorithms and QKD.

• Quantum Interference: The phenomenon where probability waves of qubit states combine – they
can reinforce or cancel each other. Think of two ocean waves colliding: sometimes they add up into a
bigger wave, other times they flatten out 180 . Quantum algorithms use interference to amplify correct
answers and cancel wrong ones, improving the chance of getting the right result when you measure.

29
• Quantum Gate: An operation on qubits that changes their state, analogous to logic gates for bits.
But whereas a classical NOT gate flips 0→1 or 1→0, a quantum gate can do more exotic things – like
rotate a qubit to a superposition of 0 and 1 17 . Common gates include the Hadamard (puts a qubit
into equal superposition) or CNOT (entangles two qubits). Gates are the building blocks of quantum
circuits/algorithms.

• Quantum Circuit: A sequence of quantum gates applied to qubits, like a program for a quantum
computer. After the gates, you measure the qubits to get an output. The pattern of gates and
measurements composes a quantum algorithm.

• Quantum Tunneling: When a particle goes through a barrier it normally couldn’t surmount. Picture
a bowling ball that sometimes goes straight through a hill instead of climbing over it – weird, right? In
quantum mechanics, particles can “tunnel” through energy barriers with some probability 19 .
Quantum annealers use tunneling to find low-energy solutions.

• Decoherence: The loss of a quantum system’s coherence (quantum behavior) due to interaction with
the environment. It’s like a fragile soap bubble popping when it touches the air – the qubit’s
superposition “pops” and it becomes a regular classical mixture. Decoherence is what we try to
prevent in quantum computing by isolating qubits and operating quickly 20 .

• Quantum Error Correction (QEC): Methods to protect quantum information from errors (caused by
decoherence, noise, etc.) by using redundancy and clever encoding. Think of it as a spell-checker for
quantum computers – it detects when a qubit’s state has an error and fixes it using extra qubits that
act as parity checks 181 . QEC is essential for building large, reliable quantum computers but
introduces overhead (many physical qubits per one logical qubit).

• Quantum Supremacy / Quantum Advantage: Terms to describe a quantum computer doing

something beyond classical capability. Quantum supremacy is the milestone of any task (even a
contrived one) that a quantum computer can do but a classical one effectively can’t 21 . Quantum
advantage often refers to a useful task where quantum shows a significant benefit over classical.
These are key milestones proving the power of quantum tech.

• Quantum Algorithm: A set of instructions that runs on a quantum computer to solve a problem.
They’re like special recipes that use quantum ingredients (superposition, entanglement) to cook up a
solution faster 18 . Examples include Shor’s algorithm (for factoring large numbers exponentially
faster than classical) and Grover’s algorithm (for searching unsorted databases quadratically faster
than classical).

• Quantum Annealing: A computing paradigm (used by D-Wave machines) where qubits are used to
solve optimization problems by slowly evolving their state to find a minimum energy configuration.
It’s like gently shaking a puzzle box so that the pieces settle into the solution 182 . Technically, the system
is cooled (or “annealed”) into the ground state of a Hamiltonian that encodes the problem – ideally
landing on the best solution. It’s different from gate-based quantum computing, and mainly for
specific optimization tasks.

• Quantum Fourier Transform (QFT): A quantum version of the discrete Fourier transform, which is a
subroutine used in several algorithms (including Shor’s). It’s ultra-efficient on a quantum computer.

30
 Think of it as a super-fast way to find patterns or frequencies in data – solving in seconds what might take
a classical computer years 183 .

• Quantum Sensor: A device that uses quantum effects to make ultra-sensitive measurements. For
instance, sensors so sensitive they could detect a single molecule’s magnetic field or tiny gravitational
waves 184 . Quantum sensors can outperform classical ones – examples include atomic clocks (for
precise time), magnetometers using SQUIDs or NV centers (for brain imaging or geological surveys),
etc. They are an important quantum technology parallel to computing.

• High-Performance Computing (HPC): This refers to classical supercomputing – using lots of

classical processors in parallel to solve big problems. Basically, supercomputers on beast mode 185 ,
like those used for climate modeling, simulating explosions, or AI training. HPC provides the
benchmark that quantum computers aim to surpass for certain tasks.

• “Deep Tech Valley of Death”: A metaphor for the challenging phase in a deep technology startup’s
life where it’s burning money on R&D, the tech isn’t mature enough to sell, and investors might get
impatient. It’s the tough level every deep-tech startup must survive, where many perish due to high costs,
long timelines, and uncertain results 186 . For quantum startups, this valley can last many years, hence
careful strategy is needed (as discussed earlier).

• Photon-Number Resolving Detectors (PNRDs): A type of single-photon detector that can not only
detect a photon’s arrival but also count how many photons are detected at once. They’re like ultra-
precise photon counters – crucial for photonic quantum computing and communication 186 .
Traditional detectors might click the same whether 1 photon or 5 photons hit at the same time, but
PNRDs can distinguish the number, which is important in certain quantum protocols and
experiments.

These terms and concepts form the foundational language of quantum computing. Understanding them is
essential for anyone studying the field or preparing for an exam on the subject. With these explanations
and the detailed discussions above, one should have a solid grasp of both the technical underpinnings of
quantum computing and the broader context in which this technology is evolving – including hardware
types, software applications, industry trends, and global efforts. Armed with this knowledge, you’ll be well-
prepared to navigate the quantum computing landscape, whether in academic study, professional
involvement, or informed examination.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30

31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60

61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90

91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118

119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145

146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172

173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 Quantum Computing BLUprint_v1 | PDF | Quantum
Computing | Computing
https://www.scribd.com/document/856062374/Quantum-Computing-BLUprint-v1

31