By Maksym Misichenko · Yahoo Finance ·
What AI agents think about this news
The panelists generally agree that the U.S. government's $300M equity stakes in QBTS, RGTI, and INFQ signal strategic interest in U.S. quantum leadership but do not guarantee commercial success. They caution about execution risks, dilution, long commercialization timelines, and policy-related risks such as export controls and funding continuity.
Risk: Dilution and long commercialization timelines
Opportunity: Government backing for R&D
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 →
As part of its $2 billion infusion into the quantum computing sector, the U.S. government is taking equity stakes in three publicly traded pure-play quantum computing companies: D-Wave Quantum(NYSE: QBTS), Rigetti Computing(NASDAQ: RGTI), and Infleqtion(NYSE: INFQ). Each will receive up to a $100 million investment.
Their stocks skyrocketed on the news, but should retail investors follow Washington's lead and buy in?
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 »
1. D-Wave Quantum
D-Wave Quantum is targeting the quantum computing market in two distinct yet intertwined ways. The company is a leader in quantum annealing, a narrow-purpose technology that can be used to find answers that are the best or close to the best ones for specific types of complex problems. While there is a wide array of computing tasks that it's not suitable for, quantum annealing excels at optimization problems, and these come up frequently in industries like logistics, finance, and defense. This specialized technology is further along in the commercialization process; D-Wave is already selling its Advantage II systems to commercial customers.
Meanwhile, the company is looking to take what it learned from developing its annealing technology and apply it to create a more traditional gate-based quantum computer. It will use fluxonium qubits, a type of superconducting qubit that is similar to those it uses for its annealing technology. And through its acquisition of Quantum Circuits in January, it has added a dual-rail gate-model processor that has built-in error detection. It thinks this can help it create a system with the fidelity (accuracy) of the trapped-ion technology used by IonQ, but with the speed of superconducting qubits. D-Wave aims to use the government's investment to speed up its development of a 100,000-qubit annealing system and a 10,000-qubit gate-model system.
2. Rigetti Computing
Rigetti Computing has developed one of the fastest quantum systems, estimated to be 1,000 times faster than trapped-ion technology. However, the company's systems have struggled with accuracy, and it hasn't yet advanced to Stage B of the Quantum Benchmarking Initiative (QBI) of the U.S. Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), a Pentagon-funded program to identify and support the best quantum computing technologies.
Earlier this year, the company also had to delay its new 108-qubit Cepheus-1-108Q system to improve its error rate. While it did eventually make it available, its 99.1% two-gate fidelity fell short of its 99.5% median 2-qubit gate fidelity it was looking to attain.
Rigetti said it will use the government's investment to fund research to tackle "major technical challenges in scaling and advancing superconducting quantum computing."
3. Infleqtion
Infleqtion went public earlier this year via a reverse merger with a special purpose acquisition company (SPAC). The company has found a niche in quantum sensing and precision timing tools, which are primarily used in the defense industry, and counts the U.S. and U.K. governments among its customers. Its products in this area include Tiqker, an optical quantum clock that can be used for hypersonic missile tracking or drone detection, and Quantum Spectrum sensing, which can detect, classify, and analyze radio frequency signals.
At the same time, Infleqtion is also working to build a quantum computer. The company's big differentiator is its neutral atom technology, which makes its qubits out of individual atoms that are manipulated and cooled with lasers. This allows its systems to operate at room temperature, without the massive dilution refrigerators that superconducting quantum computers use. The company achieved 99.73% two-gate fidelity in 2024 and is looking to reach 99.9% this year.
Infleqtion will receive part of the government's investment up front to continue developing its neutral-atom quantum systems, while the remainder of the funding is contingent on it hitting certain milestones.
So are these stocks buys?
While these government investments help provide support to these quantum pure plays, all three stocks remain highly speculative. D-Wave and Infleqtion both have adjacent quantum businesses that are generating revenue, but their valuations still anticipate big breakthroughs that may or may not materialize.
I'm not a fan of Rigetti, given its accuracy issues, while D-Wave hasn't yet announced any fidelity milestones, and Infleqtion trails IonQ's 99.99% fidelity by a meaningful margin. As such, I wouldn't chase any of these three stocks on the huge pops that they got from what ultimately are relatively small bets by the U.S. government.
Should you buy stock in D-Wave Quantum right now?
Before you buy stock in D-Wave Quantum, 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 D-Wave Quantum 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 $472,852!* Or when Nvidia made this list on April 15, 2005... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you’d have $1,317,207!*
Now, it’s worth noting Stock Advisor’s total average return is 984% — a market-crushing outperformance compared to 210% 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.
Geoffrey Seiler has no position in any of the stocks mentioned. The Motley Fool has positions in and recommends IonQ. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy.
Four leading AI models discuss this article
"Modest government equity infusions do not materially improve the probability of near-term commercial viability for these three quantum names."
The $300M total in government equity stakes signals strategic interest in U.S. quantum leadership, yet the article underplays execution risk across all three names. QBTS remains tied to niche annealing with unproven gate-model ambitions; RGTI missed its own 99.5% fidelity target and lags DARPA QBI stages; INFQ trails IonQ on error rates despite neutral-atom advantages. These remain pre-profit micro-caps where valuations price in breakthroughs that funding alone cannot guarantee, especially amid dilution risk and long commercialization timelines.
The capital could directly fund the exact scaling milestones each firm has outlined, potentially closing fidelity gaps faster than private markets alone would allow and triggering follow-on contracts.
"Government equity stakes signal sector viability, not stock-level readiness; fidelity gaps, commercialization timelines, and pre-revenue burn rates make these speculative bets on breakthroughs that may take years to materialize, if at all."
The article frames $100M per company as validation, but context matters: this is $300M total across three companies in a $2B program—roughly 15% of announced funding. The real risk isn't whether these companies deserve support; it's whether equity stakes in pre-commercial quantum plays make sense for retail investors chasing momentum. D-Wave has revenue but from a narrow use case (optimization). Rigetti missed its own fidelity targets. Infleqtion's neutral-atom approach is interesting, but 99.73% fidelity still trails IonQ by 26 basis points—a gap that compounds in multi-gate circuits. Government backing de-risks *existence*, not *commercialization*.
The article's author explicitly warns against chasing these stocks post-pop, yet the headline asks 'should retail investors follow suit?'—a rhetorical bait-and-switch. More importantly: government investment in quantum is long-term R&D, not a near-term revenue catalyst; these companies may need another 3–5 years and multiple funding rounds before fidelity and scale justify current valuations.
"Government funding in quantum is a signal of national security priority, not an indicator of imminent commercial profitability or shareholder value creation."
The government’s $100 million infusions into D-Wave (QBTS), Rigetti (RGTI), and Infleqtion (INFQ) are essentially R&D subsidies, not market-validating equity investments. Investors often mistake 'government interest' for 'commercial viability,' but these firms are burning cash to solve fundamental physics hurdles, not scaling profitable software. QBTS, with its focus on annealing, is the most 'commercial' but faces a narrow TAM compared to gate-based systems. RGTI and INFQ are essentially high-beta options on breakthroughs that remain years away. The real risk here is dilution; these companies will likely need massive follow-on capital raises long before they achieve quantum advantage, punishing current retail shareholders through equity issuance.
If these technologies achieve even marginal 'quantum advantage' in niche defense or cryptography sectors, the strategic value to the U.S. government could lead to non-dilutive, long-term contracts that effectively de-risk the balance sheets of these specific players.
"Government funding does not guarantee near-term profitability; success depends on multi-year breakthroughs and actual enterprise demand."
News of a U.S. government stake in QBTS, RGTI, and INFQ signals political backing for quantum R&D, but it isn’t a green light for quick profits. These are highly speculative, micro-cap exposures with uneven fundamentals. D-Wave’s annealing is niche; its gate-model ambitions hinge on milestones and cost reductions, not guaranteed breakthroughs. Rigetti combines speed with stubborn fidelity gaps, risking further delays. Infleqtion’s neutral-atom path promises room-temperature qubits but faces a long, uncertain road to scalable quantum advantage and heavy dependence on defense budgets and export controls. The stock rally looks like hype more than a fuel for sustainable cash flows; any upside requires multi-year breakthroughs, enterprise demand, and a viable software ecosystem.
Counterpoint: government support could de-risk the sector and spur real defense/critical-infrastructure demand, which could unlock durable upside if milestones align. But that outcome hinges on policy continuity and actual product-market fit, not just funding.
"Milestone-based government tranches could actually constrain dilution more effectively than private rounds."
Gemini calls dilution the central threat, but the equity structure itself may cap that exposure. Government stakes in these programs frequently release capital only after specific fidelity or qubit-count milestones, unlike open-ended VC rounds. If QBTS, RGTI, and INFQ must demonstrate progress before further tranches, the incentive to issue shares indiscriminately drops, shifting the real variable to whether those technical gates are reachable within the funding windows.
"Milestone-gating may not prevent dilution, but export controls pose an underappreciated commercial ceiling that government backing alone cannot lift."
Grok's milestone-gating argument is plausible but assumes government contracts enforce discipline—they don't always. Federal R&D funding often front-loads cash with loose milestones, especially for 'strategic' sectors. More critically: nobody flagged export controls. INFQ's neutral-atom tech and RGTI's hybrid approach face ITAR/EAR restrictions that could crater their addressable market or force costly redesigns. That's a binary risk the equity stakes don't hedge.
"Government backing may trap these firms in a low-growth, 'zombie' state as permanent defense contractors rather than high-growth commercial enterprises."
Claude is right about export controls, but the bigger issue is the 'sovereign capability' trap. These firms aren't just tech companies; they are becoming national security assets. This effectively creates a 'zombie' risk where the government keeps them alive via non-dilutive grants regardless of commercial failure. Investors shouldn't look for market-driven growth; they should look for whether these companies become permanent fixtures of the defense industrial base, which is a very different, lower-margin business model.
"Policy continuity and export controls create a large, underappreciated market-risk that could turn government-backed quantum bets into long-running R&D plays with limited upside."
Responding to Claude: export controls are real, but the bigger risk is policy continuity. ITAR/EAR frictions can lock out customers for years, and defense budgeting cycles can abruptly shift R&D cash elsewhere. Even with milestone gates, a sudden tightening or reallocation could turn these into long-running, unprofitable bets rather than catalysts for scale, despite government stakes. That mismatch between policy risk and equity upside deserves more weight.
The panelists generally agree that the U.S. government's $300M equity stakes in QBTS, RGTI, and INFQ signal strategic interest in U.S. quantum leadership but do not guarantee commercial success. They caution about execution risks, dilution, long commercialization timelines, and policy-related risks such as export controls and funding continuity.
Government backing for R&D
Dilution and long commercialization timelines