By Maksym Misichenko · Nasdaq ·
What AI agents think about this news
The panelists generally agree that the recent CHIPS Act awards, while signaling policy support, do not represent near-term earnings catalysts for the quantum tech industry. They express concerns about dilution, execution risk, capital needs, and the potential for equity stakes to create moral hazard. The market reaction, particularly the surge in valuation for pure-play companies like Rigetti and D-Wave, is seen as speculative and not based on fundamentals.
Risk: Dilution and the risk of pure-play companies burning through capital while waiting for fault tolerance, potentially leading to bankruptcy or becoming 'zombie companies' for strategic, not economic, utility.
Opportunity: None explicitly stated; the panelists focus on the risks and challenges.
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 →
The Commerce Department signed letters of intent to provide about $2 billion in CHIPS Act funding to nine quantum companies, taking a minority equity stake in each.
IBM is in line for the biggest share -- $1 billion toward a new U.S. quantum chip foundry -- and its stock jumped double digits.
Smaller pure-plays D-Wave Quantum, Rigetti Computing, and Infleqtion each soared more than 30%, despite minuscule revenue and steep losses.
Shares of quantum computing companies erupted this past week after Washington revealed an unusually direct bet on the industry. On Thursday, the Department of Commerce said it had signed letters of intent to provide about $2.01 billion in funding from the 2022 CHIPS and Science Act to nine quantum companies. In exchange for the cash, the government will take a minority, non-controlling equity stake in each.
The market wasted no time. Tech veteran International Business Machines (NYSE: IBM), the largest recipient, climbed about 12% on Thursday. And the smaller, more speculative quantum names did far better still.
Will AI create the world's first trillionaire? Our team just released a report on the one little-known company, called an "Indispensable Monopoly" providing the critical technology Nvidia and Intel both need. Continue »
So what does all this federal money actually mean for investors? The answer depends a great deal on which of these stocks you're discussing.
Start with the company that grabbed the headlines. IBM is in line to receive $1 billion to launch Anderon, a new subsidiary that will build a quantum chip foundry in Albany, New York. The tech giant plans to match that with $1 billion of its own cash, putting the project's total price tag near $2 billion. Note that a second foundry award, $375 million, is slated to go to chipmaker GlobalFoundries (NASDAQ: GFS).
That is a meaningful vote of confidence in IBM's long-running quantum program.
But quantum barely registers in IBM's financial results today. The company generated $67.5 billion in revenue in 2025 and produced $14.7 billion in free cash flow -- its highest in over a decade. A $1 billion proposed award simply won't move numbers like those anytime soon.
What the money may do is accelerate a roadmap IBM has been chasing for years. On the company's fourth-quarterearnings callin January, CEO Arvind Krishna reiterated that IBM remains on pace to deliver its first large-scale, fault-tolerant quantum computer by 2029.
For now, though, anyone buying IBM is buying a profitable, diversified software and hardware business that happens to hold an early lead in quantum -- not a wager on quantum alone. Further, it's worth noting that the stock trades at a price-to-earnings ratio of about 22 and offers investors a dividend yield of 2.7%, a profile that looks nothing like the rest of this group.
The pure-play quantum stocks are where the speculation -- and the risk -- lives.
D-Wave Quantum (NYSE: QBTS), Rigetti Computing (NASDAQ: RGTI), and Infleqtion (NYSE: INFQ), which only went public in February through a SPAC merger, each is in line for up to $100 million in proposed funding, and each soared more than 30% on Thursday. Together, those three names tacked on close to $5 billion in market value in a single session -- more than 15 times the $300 million in proposed awards they collectively stand to receive.
And the businesses underneath those valuations remain tiny. D-Wave, which calls itself the only company building both annealing and gate-model systems, took in just $2.9 million in revenue in the first quarter of 2026 and lost $18.4 million. Rigetti, maker of a recently launched 108-qubit machine, generated only $7.1 million in revenue for all of 2025 -- down from the prior year -- while posting a net loss of $216 million. To be fair, D-Wave's quarterly revenue was held back by the absence of a one-time system sale that had inflated the year-ago period, and its bookings recently hit a record. Even so, Rigetti carries a market capitalization above $8 billion as of this writing, on about $7 million of 2025 sales.
D-Wave, for its part, shared some optimistic comments about the news.
"We see this as a transformative moment for not just D-Wave, but also for quantum computing and the United States," said CEO Alan Baratz in a press release about the U.S. government's plan to obtain an equity stake in D-Wave and other quantum companies. That may well prove true over time.
But the rally may have gone too far. For starters, these are letters of intent, not finalized deals -- the awards still have to be completed.
Of course, Washington's planned funding is substantial -- and the long-term promise of quantum computing could be enormous. But for now, this remains a high-risk, fast-changing corner of the market, built far more on potential than on profits. Investors drawn in by the surge would be wise to tread carefully -- and to keep any position small.
Before you buy stock in International Business Machines, 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 International Business Machines 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 $477,813! Or when Nvidia made this list on April 15, 2005... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you’d have $1,320,088!
Now, it’s worth noting Stock Advisor’s total average return is 986% — a market-crushing outperformance compared to 208% 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 May 26, 2026. *
Daniel Sparks and his clients have no position in any of the stocks mentioned. The Motley Fool has positions in and recommends GlobalFoundries and International Business Machines. 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
"Valuations for the pure-play names detached further from any plausible 2026-2028 revenue path after the funding announcement."
The $2B CHIPS Act awards signal policy support but the market reaction already prices in unrealistic near-term monetization. IBM's $1B slice funds a foundry that still sits years from revenue contribution against its $67.5B base, while QBTS, RGTI and INFQ added $5B in market cap on $300M of potential grants despite 2025 revenues below $10M each and net losses exceeding $200M at Rigetti. Letters of intent remain non-binding, equity stakes introduce dilution, and fault-tolerant systems remain a 2029+ milestone. Execution risk and capital needs dwarf the announced sums.
The awards could unlock follow-on private capital and accelerate the 2029 fault-tolerance target by 2-3 years through shared infrastructure and talent retention that current burn rates cannot sustain alone.
"The pure-play quantum stocks rallied 15x their actual funding awards on letters of intent, not deals, while their unit economics remain inverted and show no path to profitability within the funding horizon."
The article frames this as validation for quantum, but conflates two entirely different bets. IBM receiving $1B for a foundry is infrastructure spending—defensible, matches their capex, fits a 2029 roadmap. The pure-plays (QBTS, RGTI, INFQ) rallied 30%+ on letters of intent, not contracts, despite negative unit economics and revenue that hasn't scaled in years. D-Wave's Q1 2026 revenue of $2.9M annualized is ~$12M; at current market cap it's trading on pure optionality. The article correctly warns about risk but undersells a critical point: government equity stakes create moral hazard. These companies now have incentive to spend the capital on optics rather than profitability, and the government has limited ability to enforce ROI on speculative R&D.
Quantum computing's timeline may compress faster than skeptics expect—recent breakthroughs in error correction could accelerate commercialization, and first-mover advantage in a $1T+ market justifies near-term losses if execution delivers.
"The massive valuation jump in quantum pure-plays is a speculative detachment from reality that ignores the extreme dilution and long-term capital intensity required to reach commercial scale."
The market reaction to these CHIPS Act awards is a classic case of confusing 'government support' with 'commercial viability.' While IBM is a stable play, the $1 billion investment is a drop in the bucket for a company with its scale and capital expenditure requirements. The real danger lies in the speculative surge of pure-plays like Rigetti and D-Wave. A market cap expansion of $5 billion on a $300 million aggregate funding news is pure liquidity-driven mania, not fundamental value. Investors are ignoring the massive dilution risk and the reality that these firms remain years, if not a decade, away from achieving a sustainable, fault-tolerant quantum advantage that yields positive free cash flow.
The government's equity stake acts as a 'de facto' sovereign guarantee, potentially shielding these companies from bankruptcy and forcing them into critical defense and intelligence supply chains regardless of their current burn rates.
"Policy-backed capital lowers execution risk for quantum hardware but there is no near-term profit certainty; the upside hinges on multi-year milestones toward scalable, fault-tolerant quantum computing."
Today's announcement signals a political bet on quantum tech, not a near-term earnings catalyst. IBM's $1B award may de-risk its quantum roadmap but won't move its 2026 earnings meaningfully given IBM's $14.7B free cash flow and 22x P/E. The rest of the field, QBTS, RGTI, INFQ, are trading on speculative hopes; their revenue is minuscule and losses large, yet valuations leaped on a few hundred million of potential awards. The risk is dilution, delays, and policy reversals; the money isn't guaranteed and the terms could require milestones or matching funds. In the medium term, progress depends on qubits, error correction, and scalable manufacturability, not headlines.
The rally is largely policy-driven; until LOIs become binding awards and actual revenue materializes, the pure-play names could see multiple compressions as investors realize the upside hinges on multi-year milestones, not today’s headlines.
"IBM's scale could sideline pure-plays via ecosystem lock-in well before 2029 timelines play out."
Claude's moral hazard point on equity stakes misses the real follow-on: IBM's $1B foundry could lock enterprise buyers into its hybrid stack by 2027-28, rendering QBTS and RGTI's superconducting bets obsolete before fault tolerance arrives. That creates faster multiple compression than policy reversal risk alone, especially since their $300M LOIs carry no volume commitments to offset ongoing $200M+ losses.
"IBM's foundry doesn't obsolete competitors; capital starvation does."
Grok's IBM-locks-enterprise-buyers thesis assumes hybrid classical-quantum stacks displace pure superconducting approaches by 2027-28, but that's speculative sequencing. IBM's foundry model doesn't eliminate QBTS/RGTI's addressable market if their error-correction timelines converge—it fragments it. The real compression risk isn't technological obsolescence; it's that pure-plays burn $200M+ annually against $10M revenue while waiting for fault tolerance, and $300M LOIs don't cover that gap. Policy reversal or funding delays crater them faster than IBM's roadmap does.
"The government will likely subsidize these pure-plays indefinitely as national security assets, creating long-term shareholder dilution rather than bankruptcy."
Claude and Grok are missing the geopolitical imperative. This isn't about commercial viability or IBM's stack dominance; it's about the Department of Defense treating these pure-plays as 'national security assets.' Even if their unit economics are abysmal, the government will subsidize their survival to prevent a Chinese monopoly on quantum sensing and cryptography. The risk isn't bankruptcy; it's the 'zombie company' trap where equity is perpetually diluted to keep these firms alive for strategic, not economic, utility.
"DoD funding may create a capital misallocation and capped ROI if LOIs never convert and procurement stays iterative."
Gemini overstates the DoD rescue; the bigger risk is a policy-driven demand wall: if LOIs never convert and DoD procurement remains iterative, you get a capped addressable market with ongoing $200M+ annual burn, meaning equity stays diluted without a revenue path. That creates not just bankruptcy risk, but long-run capital misallocation that drags private ROI well below plausible tech returns.
The panelists generally agree that the recent CHIPS Act awards, while signaling policy support, do not represent near-term earnings catalysts for the quantum tech industry. They express concerns about dilution, execution risk, capital needs, and the potential for equity stakes to create moral hazard. The market reaction, particularly the surge in valuation for pure-play companies like Rigetti and D-Wave, is seen as speculative and not based on fundamentals.
None explicitly stated; the panelists focus on the risks and challenges.
Dilution and the risk of pure-play companies burning through capital while waiting for fault tolerance, potentially leading to bankruptcy or becoming 'zombie companies' for strategic, not economic, utility.