We introduce quantum utility, a new approach to evaluating quantum performance that aims to capture the user experience by including overhead costs associated with the quantum computation. A demonstration of quantum utility by a quantum processing unit (QPU) shows that the QPU can outperform classical solvers at some tasks of interest to practitioners, when considering computational overheads. We consider overhead costs that arise in standalone use of the QPU (as opposed to a hybrid computation context). We define three early milestones on the path to broad-scale quantum utility that focus on restricted subsets of overheads: Milestone 0 considers pure anneal time (no overheads) and has been demonstrated in previous work; Milestone 1 includes overhead times to access the QPU (that is, programming and readout); and Milestone 2 incorporates an indirect cost associated with minor embedding. We evaluate the performance of a D-Wave Advantage QPU with respect to Milestones 1 and 2, using a testbed of 13 input classes and seven classical solvers implemented on CPUs and GPUs. For Milestone 1, the QPU outperformed all classical solvers in 99% of our tests. For Milestone 2, the QPU outperformed all classical solvers in 19% of our tests, and the scenarios in which the QPU found success correspond to cases where classical solvers most frequently failed. Analysis of test results on specific inputs reveals fundamentally distinct underlying mechanisms that explain the observed differences in quantum and classical performance profiles. We present evidence-based arguments that these distinctions bode well for future annealing quantum processors to support demonstrations of quantum utility on ever-expanding classes of inputs and for more challenging milestones.
We introduce quantum utility, a new approach to evaluating quantum performance that aims to capture the user experience by including overhead costs associated with the quantum computation. A demonstration of quantum utility by a quantum processing unit (QPU) shows that the QPU can outperform classical solvers at some tasks of interest to practitioners, when considering computational overheads. We consider overhead costs that arise in standalone use of the QPU (as opposed to a hybrid computation context). We define three early milestones on the path to broad-scale quantum utility that focus on restricted subsets of overheads: Milestone 0 considers pure anneal time (no overheads) and has been demonstrated in previous work; Milestone 1 includes overhead times to access the QPU (that is, programming and readout); and Milestone 2 incorporates an indirect cost associated with minor embedding. We evaluate the performance of a D-Wave Advantage QPU with respect to Milestones 1 and 2, using a testbed of 13 input classes and seven classical solvers implemented on CPUs and GPUs. For Milestone 1, the QPU outperformed all classical solvers in 99% of our tests. For Milestone 2, the QPU outperformed all classical solvers in 19% of our tests, and the scenarios in which the QPU found success correspond to cases where classical solvers most frequently failed. Analysis of test results on specific inputs reveals fundamentally distinct underlying mechanisms that explain the observed differences in quantum and classical performance profiles. We present evidence-based arguments that these distinctions bode well for future annealing quantum processors to support demonstrations of quantum utility on ever-expanding classes of inputs and for more challenging milestones.
We introduce quantum utility , a new approach to evaluating quantum performance that aims to capture the user experience by considering the overhead costs associated with a quantum computation. A demonstration of quantum utility by the quantum processing unit (QPU) shows that the QPU can outperform classical solvers at some tasks of interest to practitioners, when considering the costs of computational overheads. A milestone is a test of quantum utility that is restricted to a specific subset of overhead costs and input types. We illustrate this approach with a benchmark study of a D-Wave annealing-based QPU versus seven classical solvers for a variety of problems in heuristic optimization. We consider overhead costs that arise in standalone use of the D-Wave QPU (as opposed to a hybrid computation). We define three early milestones on the path to broad-scale quantum utility. Milestone 0 is the purely quantum computation with no overhead costs and is demonstrated implicitly by positive results on other milestones. We evaluate the performance of a D-Wave Advantage QPU with respect to milestones 1 and 2: For milestone 1, the QPU outperformed all classical solvers in 99% of our tests. For milestone 2, the QPU outperformed all classical solvers in 19% of our tests, and the scenarios in which the QPU found success correspond to cases where classical solvers most frequently failed. This approach of isolating subsets of overheads for separate analysis reveals distinct mechanisms in quantum versus classical performance, which explain the observed differences in patterns of success and failure. We present evidence-based arguments that these distinctions bode well for annealing quantum processors to support demonstrations of quantum utility on ever-expanding classes of inputs and with more challenging milestones in the very near future.
We define the quantum utility performance metric and three milestones, which define quantum utility as measured in some limited context. Current and previous-generation annealing quantum systems can outperform classical solvers on a variety of input classes, on Milestones 0 and 1; our tests of Milestone 2 show positive results on a small set of inputs. Characterization of the input properties that drive these outcomes suggests that future tests will yield more widespread successes on these and more challenging milestones.
Quantum computing has progressed from theoretical speculation to experimental realization, leading to milestone demonstrations that claim computational superiority over classical systems. Among these milestones, quantum supremacy experiments have attracted considerable attention by showcasing tasks that are infeasible for classical computation within reasonable time limits. However, the practical value of such demonstrations remains a subject of debate. This paper critically evaluates the distinction between quantum supremacy and quantum utility, emphasizing their conceptual differences, experimental foundations, and real-world relevance. By examining key experimental results, algorithmic developments, and benchmarking approaches, the study argues that quantum utility-defined by practical, application-oriented performance-provides a more meaningful metric for long-term progress. The paper highlights the limitations of supremacy-based demonstrations and discusses pathways toward achieving utility-driven quantum advantage in the near and long term.
Quantum computing promises to revolutionize several scientific and industrial domains by tackling problems that are intractable for classical supercomputers. At the centre of this effort is the quantum processor unit (QPU), implemented today across multiple physical qubit platforms. This review provides a comparative analysis of the state of quantum processors as of late 2024/early 2025, focusing on superconducting qubits, trapped ions, photonic systems, neutral atoms, silicon spin qubits, and emerging topological approaches. We compile and compare recent processor generations such as IBM’s Heron family, Google’s updated Sycamore-class devices, Quantinuum’s H-series, IonQ’s Aria and Forte, neutral-atom platforms with more than 1,000 trapped atoms, and silicon spin prototypes like Tunnel Falls. Key performance metrics, including qubit count, gate and readout fidelity, coherence time, operation speed, and holistic benchmarks such as Quantum Volume (QV) and Algorithmic Qubits (#AQ) are examined with reference to concrete experimental milestones. We discuss algorithmic capabilities demonstrated on current hardware, early realizations of logical qubits and fault-tolerant primitives, and the distinction between feasibility-oriented “quantum advantage” experiments and emerging signs of practical “quantum utility”. Finally, we outline the main technical bottlenecks for each platform on the path from today’s NISQ devices toward universal fault-tolerant quantum computers.
One of the primary focuses in the rapidly changing scenery of quantum computing is one of the most promising methodologies for transgressing the current feat of quantum technologies: a better mix of quantum and classical paradigms of computations.This paper suggests a new hybrid quantum-classical processor architecture that augments the computational speed and enhances efficiency by utilizing powers emanating from the quantum and classical processing units.The architecture proposed in the study incorporates quantum processing units with classical processing units, with CPUs interfaced tightly to support dynamic task allocation with a view toward computational requirements.Hybrid processor design caters to the performance of quantum algorithms that usually involve classical preprocessing and postprocessing, such as the Variational Quantum Eigensolver and Quantum Approximate Optimization Algorithm.These algorithms are essential for any complicated optimization, the simulation of quantum systems, and applications in machine learning.We provide an insightful processor architecture design, understanding the communication protocol details between QPU and CPU, the scheduling mechanism for hybrid tasks, and the optimization techniques employed to minimize data transfer overhead while maximizing computational throughput.A lot of these implementation challenges, like quantum error correction, managing the coherence time, and classical-quantum data conversion, are something that innovations in hardware design and software algorithms can achieve.In this paper, the performance of the hybrid processor is, for the first time, fully benchmarked based on simulation and experimental setups.Resultsshow that this hybrid approach outperforms standalone quantum and classical processors on specific computational tasks by ten times in optimization problems and five times for machine learning.These include case studies showing that for some problems, the processor can solve real-world problems much more efficiently than any existing quantum or classical system.Such case studies include quantum chemistry simulations, cryptographic tasks, and training machine learning models.We turn to the scalability and flexibility of the hybrid processor to extend the horizon of these case studies and to bridge the gap between the current quantum computing capabilities and the race toward fully functional quantum computers.This new hybrid quantum-classical processor architecture makes significant progress in quantum computing by providing a pragmatic, workable solution for harnessing quantum mechanics but using the maturity of classical computing.The results show how to proceed with the research involving the hybrid system and the many potential applications of such systems across optimization, cryptography, and artificial intelligence.This study is significant as it offers a practical approach to overcoming the limitations of current quantum and classical processors, providing a pathway to more efficient and scalable computational solutions.
Several benchmarks have been proposed to holistically measure quantum computing performance. While some have focused on the end user’s perspective (e.g., in application-oriented benchmarks), the real industrial value taking into account the physical footprint of the quantum processor are not discussed. Different use-cases come with different requirements for size, weight, power consumption, or data privacy while demanding to surpass certain thresholds of fidelity, speed, problem size, or precision. This paper aims to incorporate these characteristics into a concept coined quantum utility, which demonstrates the effectiveness and practicality of quantum computers for various applications where quantum advantage – defined as either being faster, more accurate, or demanding less energy – is achieved over a classical machine of similar size, weight, and cost. To successively pursue quantum utility, a level-based classification scheme – constituted as application readiness levels (ARLs) – as well as extended classification labels are introduced. These are demonstratively applied to different quantum applications from the fields of quantum chemistry, quantum simulation, quantum machine learning, and data analysis followed by a brief discussion.