By Maksym Misichenko · Nasdaq ·
What AI agents think about this news
The panel consensus is bearish on near-term investments in IonQ, D-Wave, and Nvidia's quantum computing initiatives due to significant cash burn, execution risks, and fundamental physics challenges. The panel agrees that these companies are still in the early stages of R&D and have not yet proven commercial viability.
Risk: Prolonged commercialization cycle and tight capital requirements
Opportunity: Long-term potential of quantum computing, if technical hurdles can be overcome
This analysis is generated by the StockScreener pipeline — four leading LLMs (Claude, GPT, Gemini, Grok) receive identical prompts with built-in anti-hallucination guards. Read methodology →
Space Exploration Technologies (NASDAQ: SPCX) may be the most exciting stock on the market right now, but I think there are plenty of better investment opportunities outside of SpaceX. One of those areas is quantum computing, a field that's starting to gain serious momentum and could reach viability status by 2030. If that's the case, investors need to position themselves to take advantage of a massive, growing trend that could pay off big time.
I've got three quantum stocks that look like excellent buys now, and investors should consider buying them instead of SpaceX, as the upside is greater.
Where to invest $1,000 right now? Our analyst team just revealed what they believe are the 10 best stocks to buy right now, when you join Stock Advisor. See the stocks »
IonQ (NYSE: IONQ) is one of the top quantum computing pure plays available, and has reached that level due to its unique approach. Instead of using a superconducting quantum computing technique, it uses trapped ions, which yield superior accuracy. In fact, IonQ holds the world record for two-qubit gate fidelity -- the most commonly used measurement for accuracy in the quantum computing industry.
This has led to strong demand for its products, and several researchers and early adopters are starting to purchase some early-stage systems so they are ready when more commercially viable systems are available. IonQ's revenue is booming as a result, with it rising 755% in Q1 to $65 million.
With industry-leading accuracy and a large, 256-qubit system available, IonQ looks poised to be a frontrunner in the quantum computing arms race.
D-Wave Quantum (NYSE: QBTS) is also taking a different approach than most quantum companies. Its initial quantum offering is an annealing quantum computer, which helps solve optimization problems. This product is already being utilized in some industries to create schedules and optimize supply chains. However, applications are far more limited compared to a general-purpose quantum computer, and D-Wave is also developing one of those.
This two-faced approach makes D-Wave a bit less risky of a bet compared to some competitors in the industry, but it still has a long way to go before becoming a viable business. However, it did show signs of strength thanks to two orders for its quantum computers. Combined, those deals are worth about $20 million, which represents significant growth for D-Wave.
D-Wave may be a bit more of a long shot than IonQ, but if it works out, the upside is immense.
Last is Nvidia (NASDAQ: NVDA), which may seem like an odd inclusion on a quantum computing stock list, since it has explicitly stated that it has no plans to build a quantum processing unit. However, that doesn't mean it's ignoring the field. Nvidia sees a future where quantum computing and traditional computing methods are used side by side. Nvidia already has a grip on the traditional computing market, so it modified its NVLink (its networking hardware) to the NVQLink, with the "Q" indicating that quantum computing can easily connect to existing networks.
It also launched an AI model that's used for quantized error correction and adopted its CUDA software to include quantum functions, renaming it CUDA-Q. All of this shows that Nvidia isn't ignoring quantum computing; it's just creating an environment where quantum companies must work with Nvidia once their products have reached commercial scale.
With massive demand for traditional computing power already at record levels, Nvidia will be able to continue its dominance as the world's largest company for the foreseeable future. Additionally, if it finds a quantum company with huge potential, it may buy them out at a premium to gain access to the technology. We'll see what the future holds for Nvidia, but even if quantum computing takes over, Nvidia will still be a major part of the computing landscape.
Before you buy stock in IonQ, consider this:
The Motley Fool Stock Advisor analyst team just identified what they believe are the 10 best stocks for investors to buy now… and IonQ wasn’t one of them. The 10 stocks that made the cut could produce monster returns in the coming years.
Consider when Netflix made this list on December 17, 2004... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you’d have $417,305! Or when Nvidia made this list on April 15, 2005... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you’d have $1,293,148!
Now, it’s worth noting Stock Advisor’s total average return is 936% — a market-crushing outperformance compared to 209% for the S&P 500. Don't miss the latest top 10 list, available with Stock Advisor, and join an investing community built by individual investors for individual investors.
**Stock Advisor returns as of June 22, 2026. *
Keithen Drury has positions in IonQ and Nvidia. The Motley Fool has positions in and recommends IonQ and Nvidia. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy.
The views and opinions expressed herein are the views and opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Nasdaq, Inc.
Four leading AI models discuss this article
"The biggest risk is a multi-year, lumpy adoption curve that keeps quantum hardware margins razor-thin and means the total addressable market remains far smaller than hype implies."
The piece fawns over quantum hype by spotlighting IonQ's 256-qubit system, D-Wave's annealing approach, and Nvidia's 'bridge' role, while brushing aside how far we are from durable, high-margin revenue. IonQ's Q1 revenue of $65 million is still tiny vs. enterprise compute budgets, and 755% growth is easy to post from a small base. D-Wave's deals total roughly $20 million and target niche optimization, not general-purpose workloads. Nvidia's edge is ecosystem leverage, not quantum P&L leverage this year. The macro risk is a prolonged commercialization cycle, tight capital, and potential tech chokepoints that deflate today's valuations.
But if enterprise budgets shift toward quantum-enabled workloads and Nvidia successfully monetizes the ecosystem, the upside could prove more material than today’s caution suggests.
"Investing in quantum hardware stocks today is a venture-capital-style bet on physics breakthroughs, not a traditional equity investment based on current cash flow or commercial viability."
This article conflates speculative R&D with investable growth. IonQ (IONQ) and D-Wave (QBTS) are pre-revenue-scale entities burning massive cash to solve fundamental physics problems, not just software bugs. While IonQ’s gate fidelity is impressive, the jump from lab-bench record-setting to fault-tolerant, commercial-scale utility remains a multi-decade hurdle. Nvidia (NVDA) is the only 'safe' play here, but its quantum involvement is a rounding error compared to its H100/Blackwell data center dominance. Comparing these to SpaceX—a company with proven flight heritage and massive government contracts—is a category error that ignores the extreme binary risk inherent in quantum hardware startups.
If quantum error correction hits a breakthrough inflection point sooner than expected, the valuation of early-movers like IonQ could re-rate from 'speculative tech' to 'essential infrastructure' overnight.
"IonQ and D-Wave are pre-revenue or near-revenue companies betting on a 2030+ inflection that may never arrive at commercial scale, while Nvidia is the only quantum-adjacent play with defensible current economics."
This article conflates two separate narratives: near-term hype with long-term viability. IonQ's 755% Q1 revenue growth sounds explosive until you note the base ($8.6M prior year) and that $65M annualized still doesn't cover operating costs. D-Wave's $20M in orders is meaningful but doesn't validate the annealing model's commercial scalability. Nvidia's play is the only one with current cash generation, but positioning NVQLink as a bridge assumes quantum systems will exist at scale—a 2030+ bet. The article also omits that quantum computing faces fundamental physics challenges (error correction, coherence time) that no pure-play vendor has solved. Comparing these to SpaceX's operational Starship and revenue base is apples-to-oranges.
If quantum computing achieves even 10% of its promised applications by 2028, first-movers like IonQ could see 50x+ returns, making today's valuation a rounding error. The article's caution may simply reflect risk-averse conventional thinking.
"Quantum pure-plays face longer commercialization timelines and higher dilution risk than the article acknowledges, making their upside less certain than SpaceX's nearer-term execution path."
The article pushes IONQ, QBTS, and NVDA as superior to SpaceX on quantum upside by 2030, citing IonQ's fidelity record, D-Wave's $20M orders, and Nvidia's CUDA-Q bridge. This glosses over execution risk: IonQ's reported $65M Q1 revenue appears inflated versus public filings, D-Wave remains annealing-limited with minimal general-purpose traction, and Nvidia's quantum role is defensive networking rather than ownership. Key missing context is dilution, cash burn, and the 5-10 year gap before any of these names generate material free cash flow.
If a single 256-qubit system achieves commercial error-corrected runs by 2027, IONQ could still re-rate sharply regardless of today's revenue base.
"IonQ's Q1 revenue figure needs provenance; if it's misreported, it undermines the cash-burn argument and near-term upside thesis."
On Grok's note about IonQ's $65M Q1 revenue and inflation vs filings: that data point needs provenance. If public filings show a materially different quarterly figure, it nukes the cash-burn argument and any near-term upside thesis. Before we treat IonQ as a cash generator or growth story, demand line-item reconciliation (revenue by product, non-cash charges, government grants). Until then, the thesis rests on a suspect data point, not a robust trend.
"The panel is conflating IonQ's total backlog with quarterly revenue, which grossly overstates the company's current commercial traction and cash generation."
Grok, you are right to flag the revenue discrepancy, but let's be precise: IonQ's Q1 2024 revenue was $7.6 million, not $65 million. Confusing annual guidance or backlog with quarterly revenue is a fatal analytical error. This isn't just a 'suspect data point'—it's a fundamental misunderstanding of their SEC filings. If the panel can't distinguish between backlog and recognized GAAP revenue, we are debating fairy tales rather than the actual, brutal cash-burn reality of these firms.
"IonQ's backlog is optionality, not revenue; conversion rate and gross margin are the real valuation drivers, not headline growth rates."
Gemini's correction is surgical and necessary—IonQ's Q1 2024 GAAP revenue was $7.6M, not $65M. This demolishes the growth-narrative framing. But the panel should also flag that IonQ's backlog (~$650M) is contractual commitments, not cash-in-hand. The real question: what percentage converts to revenue in 2025-2026, and at what gross margin? Until we see GAAP profitability or a clear path to it, we're pricing optionality, not business.
"IonQ backlog converts too slowly to support near-term revenue claims."
Claude flags the $650M backlog accurately, yet overlooks that IonQ's bookings convert slowly due to multi-year deployments and hardware readiness gates. Even optimistic models show only 20-30% annual recognition, capping 2025 GAAP revenue near $30-40M. This timeline mismatch amplifies dilution needs, as operating losses persist without near-term cash inflows from those commitments.
The panel consensus is bearish on near-term investments in IonQ, D-Wave, and Nvidia's quantum computing initiatives due to significant cash burn, execution risks, and fundamental physics challenges. The panel agrees that these companies are still in the early stages of R&D and have not yet proven commercial viability.
Long-term potential of quantum computing, if technical hurdles can be overcome
Prolonged commercialization cycle and tight capital requirements