By Maksym Misichenko · Nasdaq ·
What AI agents think about this news
The panel consensus is bearish on IonQ and QBTS, viewing them as speculative bets due to pre-revenue status, massive cash burn, and unproven scalability. D-Wave's niche focus and Nvidia's hedging strategy are also seen as risks. The $72B McKinsey projection is considered too speculative and distant.
Risk: Extreme dilution risk due to equity offerings to fund R&D and potential government-mandated consolidation or acquisition.
Opportunity: Government R&D contracts can extend runway, but export controls pose a significant threat to international sales and market expansion.
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 →
IonQ has the world's most accurate quantum computing technology.
D-Wave Quantum is seeing use cases for its products right now.
Nvidia bridges the gap between traditional and quantum computing.
Quantum computing technology isn't so far out that investors can ignore it. It's coming faster than most people think, and in order to realize maximum gains, investors need to start positioning their portfolios accordingly to take advantage of what could be a massive industry.
Currently, the quantum computing market has relatively few sales of early-stage systems, and most revenue is derived from research partnerships and contracts. However, by 2035, McKinsey & Company estimates that the quantum computing industry could generate up to $72 billion in annual revenue. That's a huge opportunity expected to emerge over the next decade, and widespread quantum computing could be available as soon as 2030.
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 »
As a result, investors have no time to lose in filling their portfolios with top quantum computing picks, as the best gains will come in the early days of the rollout, when there's the most uncertainty about who will win. I've got three stocks that I think are fantastic quantum computing investments, and make for genius buys in April.
IonQ (NYSE: IONQ) is my top pure-play quantum computing pick. IonQ has no other businesses outside of quantum computing; if it fails in this task, it's probably going to $0. That's a scary outlook, but if you look at its technology, IonQ looks likely to win in this space.
It uses trapped-ion technology, which gives it an accuracy advantage over some popular quantum computing methods. It also recently unveiled its blueprint to build a quantum computer with 10,000 qubits -- a mark some consider the minimum threshold for a commercially viable quantum computer.
The military also selected IonQ (along with a handful of others) for its DARPA contract, which showcases IonQ's prowess when compared to several other leading quantum computing companies. I think this gives plenty of credence to IonQ as an investment, making it a top quantum computing stock pick.
D-Wave Quantum (NYSE: QBTS) is another top option. D-Wave Quantum isn't approaching the quantum computing space from a normal perspective. Instead of trying to build general-purpose quantum computers that can handle workloads similar to those of today's computers, it's focusing on quantum annealing technology. Quantum annealing is best suited for optimization problems. Essentially, the computer works by seeking the lowest-energy state of the system, giving you an estimate of the ideal solution.
This isn't some far-fetched technology that has no use; it's being used right now by several manufacturers to develop production schedules and analyze supply chains. As more companies start to adopt quantum computing hardware for applications like this, D-Wave could establish itself as an early mover and capture some market share for niche applications where quantum computing is the perfect solution.
Last is Nvidia (NASDAQ: NVDA), which may seem like an odd pick. Nvidia makes graphics processing units (GPUs) and is a leader in the AI computing realm. This business and demand have driven Nvidia to become the world's largest company, so why is it a top quantum computing stock pick?
Nvidia isn't ignoring the future; it believes that quantum computing will become an integral part of computing infrastructure, but it won't do it alone. Instead of a quantum-first world, Nvidia believes the best approach will be a hybrid one, where a quantum computer interfaces with accelerated computing units like Nvidia's GPUs.
Nvidia has already taken steps to ensure its products are useful in this application, including launching the NVQLink, which allows quantum computers to plug into existing accelerated computing infrastructure. It has also adapted its CUDA software for quantum applications and launched an AI model to assist in quantum computing accuracy and error correction.
Nvidia will likely be a major partner in the quantum computing industry, and it's also benefiting from massive AI demand. That one-two punch of the two largest tech trends expected to emerge over the next decade makes Nvidia a great quantum investment pick.
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 $498,522! Or when Nvidia made this list on April 15, 2005... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you’d have $1,276,807!
Now, it’s worth noting Stock Advisor’s total average return is 983% — a market-crushing outperformance compared to 200% 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 April 26, 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
"Quantum computing stocks currently represent high-risk venture capital exposure rather than viable public market investments due to extreme cash burn and long time-to-commercialization."
The article conflates 'technological feasibility' with 'investable business models,' a dangerous trap in deep tech. While IonQ’s trapped-ion progress and D-Wave’s annealing are scientifically notable, both remain pre-revenue relative to their cash burn. IonQ’s path to 10,000 qubits is a massive engineering hurdle, not a guarantee. Nvidia is the only 'safe' play here because its quantum strategy is a hedge, not a dependency. Investors should view these as speculative venture-capital style bets, not fundamentals-based equities. The $72 billion McKinsey projection is a decade away; in the interim, dilution risk for pure-plays like IonQ and QBTS is extreme as they fund R&D through equity offerings.
If quantum error correction achieves a breakthrough sooner than expected, the 'first-mover advantage' for IonQ could lead to a valuation re-rating that makes current high-burn levels look like a bargain.
"IONQ and QBTS remain high-risk gambles with unproven commercial viability, as technical hurdles like error correction persist despite hype around roadmaps and contracts."
This Motley Fool pitch sells IONQ and QBTS as must-buys amid a hyped $72B quantum market by 2035, but glosses over their razor-thin revenues (mostly R&D contracts) and massive cash burn rates—IONQ's Q1 bookings grew, yet it's unprofitable with scalability unproven beyond lab demos. Trapped-ion accuracy is real but qubit coherence times remain too short for fault-tolerant computing; D-Wave's annealing niche has uses (e.g., optimization), but it's not scalable general-purpose QC. NVDA's hybrid play (CUDA-Q, NVLink) is smart insurance, but quantum is <1% of its $100B+ AI-driven revenue. Pure plays scream speculation, not investment—expect volatility until 2030 commercialization.
IonQ's DARPA selection and 10k-qubit roadmap position it as a leader, while D-Wave's real-world annealing deployments prove immediate value, potentially capturing outsized early-market share in McKinsey's projected boom.
"IonQ is a speculative engineering story masquerading as an investment; it has no meaningful revenue, faces execution risk on qubit scaling, and is priced as if commercial viability is certain rather than a 2030+ possibility."
This article conflates three fundamentally different bets under one umbrella. IonQ is a binary, pre-revenue pure-play with trapped-ion tech that may never reach commercial scale—the DARPA contract validates engineering, not market demand. D-Wave actually has paying customers today, which is materially different, but quantum annealing solves a narrow problem set, not general computing. Nvidia's inclusion is the real tell: it's a $3.6T company already dominating AI, and its 'quantum play' is hedging infrastructure bets, not a core growth driver. The $72B McKinsey forecast by 2035 is speculative; the article ignores that most quantum applications remain theoretical, and classical computing keeps improving. Valuations matter—IONQ trades at 200x+ sales with no path to profitability visible.
If quantum computing breaks through in 2028–2030 as some labs suggest, early-stage pure-plays like IonQ could deliver 10–50x returns before consolidation, and the article's urgency about 'positioning now' isn't entirely wrong—but that's a venture-stage bet, not a stock-market thesis.
"Near-term fundamentals do not justify the hype; scalable, fault-tolerant quantum hardware is still years away, making the stock picks high-risk despite long-term potential."
Short-term catalysts look thin: 2030–2035 revenue targets hinge on rapid, mass adoption of fault-tolerant quantum computers that hasn’t shown up in orders yet; most revenue today is tied to partnerships and services, not hardware sales. IonQ’s 10,000-qubit blueprint and DARPA contracts look impressive on paper but lack a credible, near-term path to commercialization. D-Wave’s annealing focus addresses niche optimization and could be displaced by alternative quantum approaches or improved classical algorithms. Nvidia’s quantum angle is ancillary to its AI/accelerated-computing business; the stock is trading on AI hype more than quantum fundamentals. Overall, the piece blends plausible promise with speculative timing.
A single, credible breakthrough in quantum error correction or a large-scale quantum-as-a-service contract could compress timelines and validate the hype; if that happens, these names could re-rate quickly.
"D-Wave's current revenue is a niche trap, and quantum pure-plays face a high risk of being absorbed as national security assets rather than growing into independent commercial giants."
Claude, you’re right that D-Wave has paying customers, but you’re underestimating the 'architectural trap.' D-Wave’s annealing is a dead end for general-purpose fault tolerance, meaning their current revenue might actually be a liability—it locks them into a niche that won't scale. Meanwhile, Gemini, you’re ignoring the geopolitical angle: these firms aren't just chasing commercial revenue; they are national security assets. The real risk isn't just cash burn, but potential government-mandated consolidation or acquisition.
"Geopolitical security assets increase buyout appeal but export controls exacerbate cash burn and dilution for quantum pure-plays."
Gemini, national security framing boosts acquisition odds for IonQ (DARPA validation), but ignores BIS export controls throttling international qubit sales—pure-plays can't offset burn without global reach. Unflagged risk: IonQ's Q1 op cash burn ~$100M annualized vs. $350M cash leaves <3yr runway; QBTS at $50M cash risks 50%+ dilution by Q4. Ties back to Claude: even 'paying customers' like D-Wave show sub-10% margins, unprofitable at scale.
"Government contracts extend IonQ's runway, but export controls pose a hidden TAM ceiling that dilution alone doesn't capture."
Grok's cash-runway math is sharp, but misses a critical offset: government R&D contracts (DARPA, NSF) often front-load cash before revenue recognition. IonQ's $350M cash isn't just burn-funded; it's partially contract-backed. That extends runway beyond 3 years. However, Grok's export-control risk is real and underexplored—if BIS tightens quantum IP restrictions, pure-plays lose international licensing upside, compressing TAM faster than McKinsey assumes. That's the actual near-term pressure, not just dilution.
"Regulatory-geopolitical access dynamics could cap TAM and force revenue to be policy-driven, dwarfing burn and timing risks."
Export controls aren’t just a bottleneck; they can cap addressable TAM by creating a domestic-licensing bias and policy-driven demand. Grok’s BIS risk framing is right, but the bigger issue is a two-tier market where only a few players win large, gov't contracts while others languish in export hurdles. If BIS tightens further, even DARPA-backed timelines may not translate into scalable revenue, leaving burn vs. dilution the dominant risk.
The panel consensus is bearish on IonQ and QBTS, viewing them as speculative bets due to pre-revenue status, massive cash burn, and unproven scalability. D-Wave's niche focus and Nvidia's hedging strategy are also seen as risks. The $72B McKinsey projection is considered too speculative and distant.
Government R&D contracts can extend runway, but export controls pose a significant threat to international sales and market expansion.
Extreme dilution risk due to equity offerings to fund R&D and potential government-mandated consolidation or acquisition.