This paper presents the benchmark score definitions of QPack, an application-oriented cross-platform benchmarking suite for quantum computers and simulators, which makes use of scalable Quantum Approximate Optimization Algorithm and Variational Quantum Eigensolver applications. Using a varied set of benchmark applications, an insight of how well a quantum computer or its simulator performs on a general NISQ-era application can be quantitatively made. This paper presents what quantum execution data can be collected and transformed into benchmark scores for application-oriented quantum benchmarking. Definitions are given for an overall benchmark score, as well as sub-scores based on runtime, accuracy, scalability and capacity performance. Using these scores, a comparison is made between various quantum computer simulators, running both locally and on vendors' remote cloud services. We also use the QPack benchmark to collect a small set of quantum execution data of the IBMQ Nairobi quantum processor. The goal of the QPack benchmark scores is to give a holistic insight into quantum performance and the ability to make easy and quick comparisons between different quantum computers
This paper presents the benchmark score definitions of QPack, an application-oriented cross-platform benchmarking suite for quantum computers and simulators, which makes use of scalable Quantum Approximate Optimization Algorithm and Variational Quantum Eigensolver applications. Using a varied set of benchmark applications, an insight of how well a quantum computer or its simulator performs on a general NISQ-era application can be quantitatively made. This paper presents what quantum execution data can be collected and transformed into benchmark scores for application-oriented quantum benchmarking. Definitions are given for an overall benchmark score, as well as sub-scores based on runtime, accuracy, scalability and capacity performance. Using these scores, a comparison is made between various quantum computer simulators, running both locally and on vendors' remote cloud services. We also use the QPack benchmark to collect a small set of quantum execution data of the IBMQ Nairobi quantum processor. The goal of the QPack benchmark scores is to give a holistic insight into quantum performance and the ability to make easy and quick comparisons between different quantum computers
In this paper, we present QPack, a universal benchmark for Noisy Intermediate-Scale Quantum (NISQ) computers based on Quantum Approximate Optimization Algorithms (QAOA). Unlike other evaluation metrics in the field, this benchmark evaluates not only one, but multiple important aspects of quantum computing hardware: the maximum problem size a quantum computer can solve, the required runtime, as well as the achieved accuracy. The applications MaxCut, dominating set and traveling salesman are included to provide variation in resource requirements. This will allow for a diverse benchmark that promotes optimal design considerations, avoiding hardware implementations for specific applications. We also discuss the design aspects that are taken in consideration for the QPack benchmark, with critical quantum benchmark requirements in mind. An implementation is presented, providing practical metrics. QPack is presented as a hardware agnostic benchmark by making use of the XACC library. We demonstrate the application of the benchmark on various IBM machines, as well as a range of simulators.
Benchmarking quantum computers helps to quantify them and bringing the technology to the market. Various application-level metrics exist to benchmark a quantum device at an application level. This paper presents a revised holistic scoring method called the Quantum Application Score (QuAS) incorporating strong points of previous metrics, such as QPack and the Q-score. We discuss how to integrate both and thereby obtain an application-level metric that better quantifies the practical utility of quantum computers. We evaluate the new metric on different hardware platforms such as D- Wave and IBM as well as quantum simulators of Quantum Inspire and Rigetti.
Existing protocols for benchmarking current quantum coprocessors fail to meet the usual standards for assessing the performance of high-performance-computing platforms. After a synthetic review of these protocols—whether at the gate, circuit, or application level—we introduce a new benchmark, dubbed Atos Q-score, which is application-centric, hardware-agnostic, and scalable to quantum advantage processor sizes and beyond. The Q-score measures the maximum number of qubits that can be usedeffectivelyto solve the MaxCut combinatorial optimization problem with the quantum approximate optimization algorithm. We give a robust definition of the notion of effective performance by introducing an improved approximation ratio based on the scaling of random and optimal algorithms. We illustrate the behavior of Q-score using perfect and noisy simulations of quantum processors. Finally, we provide an open-source implementation of Q-score that makes it easy to compute the Q-score of any quantum hardware.
The fragmented landscape of quantum computer benchmarks, characterized by system-specific tools and inconsistent evaluation methodologies, hinders reliable cross-platform performance assessment. We introduce Metriq, an open-source collaborative platform for reproducible cross-platform quantum benchmarking that integrates benchmark definition and execution, data collection, and public presentation into a unified workflow. The Metriq benchmark suite spans both system-level metrics that characterize fundamental device properties such as entanglement quality, gate performance, and circuit speed, as well as application-inspired protocols that assess performance on quantum machine learning, optimization, and quantum simulation tasks. Benchmarks are chosen to scale with processor size, and the framework incorporates cost and resource estimation to support practical evaluation. Using Metriq, we collect and publicly release results from more than ten quantum computers across multiple hardware vendors, enabling systematic cross-platform comparison. The resulting curated dataset also reveals the practical strengths and limitations of individual benchmarks, creating a feedback loop that informs the ongoing refinement of the suite. To summarize performance across the benchmark suite, we introduce the Metriq Score, a composite index aggregating benchmark outcomes. We further present cross-benchmark analyses enabled by the shared dataset and their correlations with hardware calibration metrics. Through open development and data sharing, Metriq provides a practical foundation for reproducible benchmarking of quantum computers as hardware and benchmarking methods continue to evolve.
Quantum computers have the potential to provide an advantage over classical computers in a number of areas. Numerous metrics to benchmark the performance of quantum computers, ranging from their individual hardware components to entire applications, have been proposed over the years. Objective comparisons are further hampered in practice as different variations of the same metric are used, and the data disclosed together with a reported metric value is often not sufficient to reproduce the measurements. In this poster, we present our recent article, where we address these challenges by providing a review of metrics and benchmarks for quantum computers [1], including 1) a comprehensive collection of benchmarks allowing holistic comparisons of quantum computers, 2) a consistent format of the definitions across all metrics including a transparent description of the methodology and of the main assumptions and limitations, and 3) a reproducible approach by linking the metrics to open-source software used to evaluate them . We identify five areas where international standardization working groups could be established, namely: i) the identification and agreement on the categories of metrics that comprehensively benchmark device performance; ii) the identification and agreement on a set of well-established metrics that together comprehensively benchmark performance; iii) the identification of metrics specific to hardware platforms, including non-gate-based quantum computers; iv) inter-laboratory comparison studies to develop best practice guides for measurement methodology; and v) agreement on what data and software should be reported together with a metric value to ensure trust, transparency and reproducibility. We provide potential routes to advancing these areas. We expect that this work will accelerate the progress of quantum computing hardware towards quantum advantage. [1] D. Lall et al., A Review and Collection of Metrics and Benchmarks for Quantum Computers: Definitions, Methodologies and Software, arXiv:2502.06717.
The QED-C suite of Application-Oriented Benchmarks provides the ability to gauge performance characteristics of quantum computers as applied to real-world applications. Its benchmark programs sweep over a range of problem sizes and inputs, capturing key performance metrics related to the quality of results, total time of execution, and quantum gate resources consumed. In this manuscript, we investigate challenges in broadening the relevance of this benchmarking methodology to applications of greater complexity. First, we introduce a method for improving landscape coverage by varying algorithm parameters systematically, exemplifying this functionality in a new scalable HHL linear equation solver benchmark. Second, we add a VQE implementation of a Hydrogen Lattice simulation to the QED-C suite, and introduce a methodology for analyzing the result quality and run-time cost trade-off. We observe a decrease in accuracy with increased number of qubits, but only a mild increase in the execution time. Third, unique characteristics of a supervised machine-learning classification application are explored as a benchmark to gauge the extensibility of the framework to new classes of application. Applying this to a binary classification problem revealed the increase in training time required for larger anzatz circuits, and the significant classical overhead. Fourth, we add methods to include optimization and error mitigation in the benchmarking workflow which allows us to: identify a favourable trade off between approximate gate synthesis and gate noise; observe the benefits of measurement error mitigation and a form of deterministic error mitigation algorithm; and to contrast the improvement with the resulting time overhead. Looking ahead, we discuss how the benchmark framework can be instrumental in facilitating the exploration of algorithmic options and their impact on performance.