By: Harry Buhrman, Chief Scientist
Quantum computing is often framed as a race to the most qubits, the fastest gates, and the biggest benchmarks.
But a race needs a destination. In the fault-tolerant era, that means solving a valuable problem faster or at a lower cost than the best classical approach—and the time to solution is ultimately what matters most.
In this context, gate speed metrics have received a lot of attention. While gate speed is a meaningful component of the overall quality of a quantum computer, what actually matters most is fidelity. As we all know, speed on its own matters little if we don’t arrive at the correct destination.
Fidelity has emerged as the most important foundation for success in quantum computing. Higher fidelity means fewer errors in the underlying physical operations. Combined with quantum error correction, higher fidelity can reduce the number of additional qubits and operations needed to make computations reliable. This reduction in overhead can lower costs and shorten the time to deliver a useful answer—even compared with systems that have faster gates but lower fidelity.
Fast Gates Do Not Guarantee Fast Answers
Consider a simple example. In an independent-error model, a computation with 10,000 operations, each with an error rate of 10⁻³, or 99.9% fidelity, will experience about ten faults on average that can render the computation useless.
Now make every gate ten times faster without changing its error rate. You still get ten faults. You just get them ten times sooner.
Speed matters, but the relevant measure is the total time required to obtain a trustworthy and useful result. Getting to that point requires performance in many different and connected areas such as state preparation, measurement, error correction, repeated runs, and other work needed to complete the computation.
Gate speed alone cannot establish which system performs best. A fast machine that cannot reliably finish a sufficiently large computation cannot deliver commercial value.
Why Fidelity Changes the Resource Equation
Quantum error correction protects information by encoding it across multiple physical qubits. That protection requires resources: additional qubits, measurements, operations, and classical processing. These techniques work better when the underlying physical operations are reliable enough that increasing error protection reduces the logical error rate.
This requirement is known as the fault-tolerance threshold, the point below which physical error rates are low enough that adding protection reduces logical errors. Faster gates can shorten the computation, but they cannot replace the physical fidelity needed to cross that threshold.
At Quantinuum, our latest error-correction results on Helios demonstrate this principle. Using our error-correction architecture, logical memory errors fell exponentially as we increased protection. Across the tested code sizes, the fitted error reduction was about twelvefold for each increase of two in code distance. In the largest quantum-memory experiment, the estimated failure rate was about five in a million per error-correction cycle.1 This demonstrates how high-fidelity physical operations and effective error correction work together to make quantum information more reliable as protection grows.
The next question is what that reliability enables. How large a computation can a system complete, and how quickly can it deliver the result?
A New Performance Benchmark
The Quantum Universal Operations Performance System, or QUOPS, provides a standardized way to assess both. This architecture-neutral benchmark gauges performance by measuring computational “reach” and speed.2
“Reach” measures how large a benchmark circuit a system can execute successfully. Speed measures how quickly it executes that circuit, in effective quantum operations per second. QUOPS uses wall-clock time and accounts for extra samples and discarded runs caused by noise.
Together, these measures provide a common basis for comparing what different quantum systems deliver and tracking progress toward better time to solution.
Quantinuum’s H2 and Helios systems executed substantially larger benchmark circuits than Google’s Willow and IBM’s Boston. These superconducting systems sometimes achieved higher effective operation rates, but on smaller circuits, which means that they are not computationally comparable.
Superconducting systems can use error mitigation to tackle larger computations, but at a steep cost in speed. The QUOPS study estimates that the additional repetitions can make effective processing thousands of times slower. Some computations remain beyond the system’s reliable reach, even with mitigation. In those cases, faster gates may deliver no useful answer at all within practical limits on time and cost.
Useful applications require speed on much larger circuits. For example, the study estimates that factoring RSA-2048 or calculating FeMoco’s ground-state energy within five days would require roughly 100,000 times the computational reach demonstrated by today’s physical-qubit processors. Some machines approach the estimated speed requirement, but only on small circuits. The challenge is to sustain that speed at the required scale, including the additional work needed for error correction.
Larger uncorrected circuits accumulate more errors. Protecting them requires extra qubits and time. Reliability and speed must therefore scale together, and QUOPS offers a way to track both.
Higher Fidelity Makes Larger, Reliable Computations Possible
Improving fidelity can reduce the extra qubits and operations needed for error correction, lowering the time, cost, and resources required for useful computation. The benefit comes from reaching the required reliability with less protection, leaving more resources available for the computation itself.
Helios brings together the physical performance and error-correction capabilities needed to pursue those savings. In our paper published in Nature we showed that the system achieved an average single-qubit gate fidelity of 99.9975% and average two-qubit gate fidelity of 99.921% across its operational zones, while scaling the trapped-ion architecture to 98 fully connected physical qubits.3
The latest color-code experiments build on that physical performance. Alongside the logical memory results, protected two-qubit Clifford operations also became more reliable as protection increased. This connects improvements in the underlying hardware to improvements in logical computation.
A flexible error-correction architecture creates further opportunities to improve efficiency. Our recent Helix and color-code demonstrations used the same Helios hardware to explore different balances of accuracy and physical-qubit requirements. That flexibility allows us to evaluate which codes best suit different computational tasks as systems scale.
However, we continue to push ahead and accelerate the development of machines, such as Apollo, where quantum utility comes into play at scale. Decoding in the new color-code benchmarks was performed offline, and we are now turning our attention to integrating error correction, magic-state resources and real-time control into longer, reliable computations.
While that work continues, today’s systems can already contribute to scientific research. NISQ systems have advanced algorithms and hardware, enabled certified randomness, and supported studies of quantum magnetism and superconducting pairing correlations. These results leave room for useful applications before fault tolerance, even as error correction provides the scalable path to larger, reliable computations.4
The goal is to combine these capabilities so that larger computations can run reliably within practical limits on time and resources. Fidelity provides the foundation, and optimizing the full system turns that foundation into better time to solution.
Fidelity First. Then Optimize Time to Solution.
Scaling quantum computation requires continued progress in fidelity. As physical operations move further below threshold, increasing error protection can suppress logical errors more effectively, enabling longer, more demanding computations.
Speed must improve alongside that reliability. Advances in transport, cooling, measurement, compilation, and parallel execution can reduce the time and total cost of solving useful problems. These improvements become increasingly valuable as systems gain the reliability needed to complete larger computations.
Our latest Helios results are proof points on the path to Apollo, our planned universal fault-tolerant quantum computer, expected by 2029. The goal is to translate these gains into systems that can solve industrially relevant problems faster or at lower cost than the best classical approach.
Industrial partnerships help connect that progress to problems that matter, from understanding high-temperature superconductivity to how molecules interact to accelerate drug discovery. They bring practical research questions into the development process and help identify where improving quantum capabilities could deliver useful results beyond the reach of classical computing alone.
Our motto is simple: fidelity first, with speed built on that foundation.
References & For Further Reading
[1] A. Lavasani et al., "Quantum error correction well below the color code threshold," arXiv:2610.24077 [quant-ph] (2026). doi:10.48550/arXiv.2610.24077.
[2] T. Proctor et al., "Benchmarking the computational power of quantum computers," arXiv:2609.12146 [quant-ph] (2026). doi:10.48550/arXiv.2609.12146.
[3] A. Ransford et al., "A 98-qubit trapped-ion quantum computer with all-to-all connectivity," Nature 655, 81-86 (2026). doi:10.1038/s41586-026-10676-4.
[4] M. Liu, R. Shaydulin, P. Niroula et al., "Certified randomness using a trapped-ion quantum processor," Nature 640, 343-348 (2025). doi:10.1038/s41586-025-08737-1.
S. Dasu et al., "Computing with many encoded logical qubits beyond break-even," arXiv:2602.22211 [quant-ph] (2026). doi:10.48550/arXiv.2602.22211.
E. Granet et al., "Superconducting pairing correlations on a trapped-ion quantum computer," arXiv:2511.02125 [quant-ph] (2025; revised 2026). doi:10.48550/arXiv.2511.02125.







