Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Log inSign up
Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Blog
Job Board
Q3AS

© 2026 Aqora Quantum S.A.S.

TermsPrivacyLegal Notice

arXiv:2407.08828 · Nature Reviews Physics

Benchmarking quantum computers

Timothy J Proctor, Kevin C Young, Andrew Baczewski, Robin Blume-Kohout

Published Jan 7, 2025• 71 citations
arXivHTMLPDF
DOI
10.1038/s42254-024-00796-z

Related papers

Characterization and Benchmarking of Quantum Computers using Cycle Benchmarking Techniques

Megan Lilly, Travis S. Humble

Bulletin of the American Physical Society•Mar 15, 2021•0 citations

Benchmarking Quantum Computers

Robson Giles

•Jan 1, 2024•0 citations

SoK: Benchmarking the Performance of a Quantum Computer

Junchao Wang, Guo‐Ping Guo, Zheng Shan

The quantum computer has been claimed to show more quantum advantage than the classical computer in solving some specific problems. Many companies and research institutes try to develop quantum computers with different physical implementations. Currently, most people only focus on the number of qubits in a quantum computer and consider it as a standard to evaluate the performance of the quantum computer intuitively. However, it is quite misleading in most times, especially for investors or governments. This is because the quantum computer works in a quite different way than classical computers. Thus, quantum benchmarking is of great importance. Currently, many quantum benchmarks are proposed from different aspects. In this paper, we review the existing performance benchmarking protocols, models, and metrics. We classify the benchmarking techniques into three categories: physical benchmarking, aggregative benchmarking, and application-level benchmarking. We also discuss the future trend for quantum computer's benchmarking and propose setting up the QTOP100.

Entropy•Oct 14, 2022•25 citations

Characterization and Benchmarking of Quantum Computers .

Megan Dahlhauser, Travis S. Humble

•Feb 1, 2022•1 citation

Scalable Full-Stack Benchmarks for Quantum Computers

Jordan Hines, Timothy J Proctor

Quantum processors are now able to run quantum circuits that are infeasible to simulate classically, creating a need for benchmarks that assess a quantum processor's rate of errors when running these circuits. Here, we introduce a general technique for creating efficient benchmarks from any set of quantum computations, specified by unitary circuits. Our benchmarks assess the integrated performance of a quantum processor's classical compilation algorithms and its low-level quantum operations. Unlike existing “full-stack benchmarks”, our benchmarks do not require classical simulations of quantum circuits, and they use only efficient classical computations. We use our method to create randomized circuit benchmarks, including a computationally efficient version of the quantum volume benchmark, and an algorithm-based benchmark that uses Hamiltonian simulation circuits. We perform these benchmarks on IBM Q devices and in simulations, and we compare their results to the results of existing benchmarking methods.

arXiv:2312.14107•IEEE Transactions on Quantum Engineering•Jan 1, 2024•3 citations

Systematic benchmarking of quantum computers: status and recommendations

Jeanette Miriam Lorenz, Thomas Monz, Jens Eisert +11 more

Architectures for quantum computing can only be scaled up when they are accompanied by suitable benchmarking techniques. The document provides a comprehensive overview of the state and recommendations for systematic benchmarking of quantum computers. Benchmarking is crucial for assessing the performance of quantum computers, including the hardware, software, as well as algorithms and applications. The document highlights key aspects such as component-level, system-level, software-level, HPC-level, and application-level benchmarks. Component-level benchmarks focus on the performance of individual qubits and gates, while system-level benchmarks evaluate the entire quantum processor. Software-level benchmarks consider the compiler's efficiency and error mitigation techniques. HPC-level and cloud benchmarks address integration with classical systems and cloud platforms, respectively. Application-level benchmarks measure performance in real-world use cases. The document also discusses the importance of standardization to ensure reproducibility and comparability of benchmarks, and highlights ongoing efforts in the quantum computing community towards establishing these benchmarks. Recommendations for future steps emphasize the need for developing standardized evaluation routines and integrating benchmarks with broader quantum technology activities.

arXiv:2503.04905•Mar 6, 2025•2 citations
The quantum computer has been claimed to show more quantum advantage than the classical computer in solving some specific problems. Many companies and research institutes try to develop quantum computers with different physical implementations. Currently, most people only focus on the number of qubits in a quantum computer and consider it as a standard to evaluate the performance of the quantum computer intuitively. However, it is quite misleading in most times, especially for investors or governments. This is because the quantum computer works in a quite different way than classical computers. Thus, quantum benchmarking is of great importance. Currently, many quantum benchmarks are proposed from different aspects. In this paper, we review the existing performance benchmarking protocols, models, and metrics. We classify the benchmarking techniques into three categories: physical benchmarking, aggregative benchmarking, and application-level benchmarking. We also discuss the future trend for quantum computer's benchmarking and propose setting up the QTOP100.
Quantum processors are now able to run quantum circuits that are infeasible to simulate classically, creating a need for benchmarks that assess a quantum processor's rate of errors when running these circuits. Here, we introduce a general technique for creating efficient benchmarks from any set of quantum computations, specified by unitary circuits. Our benchmarks assess the integrated performance of a quantum processor's classical compilation algorithms and its low-level quantum operations. Unlike existing “full-stack benchmarks”, our benchmarks do not require classical simulations of quantum circuits, and they use only efficient classical computations. We use our method to create randomized circuit benchmarks, including a computationally efficient version of the quantum volume benchmark, and an algorithm-based benchmark that uses Hamiltonian simulation circuits. We perform these benchmarks on IBM Q devices and in simulations, and we compare their results to the results of existing benchmarking methods.
Architectures for quantum computing can only be scaled up when they are accompanied by suitable benchmarking techniques. The document provides a comprehensive overview of the state and recommendations for systematic benchmarking of quantum computers. Benchmarking is crucial for assessing the performance of quantum computers, including the hardware, software, as well as algorithms and applications. The document highlights key aspects such as component-level, system-level, software-level, HPC-level, and application-level benchmarks. Component-level benchmarks focus on the performance of individual qubits and gates, while system-level benchmarks evaluate the entire quantum processor. Software-level benchmarks consider the compiler's efficiency and error mitigation techniques. HPC-level and cloud benchmarks address integration with classical systems and cloud platforms, respectively. Application-level benchmarks measure performance in real-world use cases. The document also discusses the importance of standardization to ensure reproducibility and comparability of benchmarks, and highlights ongoing efforts in the quantum computing community towards establishing these benchmarks. Recommendations for future steps emphasize the need for developing standardized evaluation routines and integrating benchmarks with broader quantum technology activities.