The Biggest Market Misconception About “Quantum Computing”: It’s Still “Too Early”
TechFlow Selected TechFlow Selected
The Biggest Market Misconception About “Quantum Computing”: It’s Still “Too Early”
The market mistakenly believes quantum computing is “a decade away,” but Barclays has warned that the industry will reach a decisive moment of “quantum advantage” in 2026/27.
Navigating Web3 tides with focused insightsBy Long Yue
Source: WallStreetCN
Investors widely regard quantum computing as still residing in the realm of science fiction. However, Barclays’ latest research report argues that this “it’s too early” misconception could cause you to miss the most critical trend over the next 12 months.
According to Foresight News, Barclays’ analyst team recently released a report titled “Quantum Computing: Correcting Investors’ Biggest Misconceptions.”
The report’s core logic is straightforward: Wall Street has underestimated the speed of technological breakthroughs—and completely misjudged the relationship between quantum and classical computing (e.g., NVIDIA). Barclays contends we stand on the cusp of transitioning from “lab toys” to “commercial tools.”
Misconception 1: Quantum Computing Is “Too Early”
Barclays’ first correction: Don’t treat quantum computing as a purely long-term theme with results only materializing a decade from now.
The market broadly believes fault-tolerant quantum computing (FTQC) won’t be fully operational until after 2030—a view that is technically correct. Yet Barclays warns investors not to overlook the crucial “final stretch” in between.
Barclays identifies 2026–2027 as the industry’s watershed moment, when “quantum advantage” will be achieved.
More importantly, how “advantage” is defined matters. Barclays asserts: “Advantage is only proven once systems reach 100 logical qubits.” It further cautions that any claim of “advantage” must be backed by robust technical data—otherwise it reflects marketing hype rather than a true inflection point.
“We anticipate major announcements within the next 12 months… Once systems can stably operate 100 logical qubits, quantum advantage will be demonstrated.”
This is akin to the Wright brothers’ first flight: although passenger transport (commercialization) remains distant, the flight proved aircraft were superior to horse-drawn carriages (quantum advantage). Once this signal emerges, capital markets’ valuation logic will instantly shift.
Misconception 2: Quantum Computing Will Replace Classical Computing—Is NVIDIA Doomed?
This is the market’s biggest cognitive bias. The report notes many assume quantum computers are so powerful they’ll displace today’s CPUs and GPUs. Barclays counters: This is not a substitution but a “power-up” relationship.
“Quantum computers will not replace classical computers as general-purpose machines—they will augment them.”
The core rationale lies in “error correction”: Qubits are extremely fragile and unstable (prone to errors). To function properly, they require an exceptionally powerful classical computing system running in real time to monitor and correct them.
Barclays’ research reveals a startling quantitative relationship:
“Each logical qubit may require one GPU for error correction and control.”
What does this imply? Building a quantum computer with 1,000 logical qubits would necessitate purchasing 500–2,000 GPUs to support it.
This is no longer competition—it’s symbiosis. The more powerful quantum computers become, the more explosive the demand for NVIDIA and AMD chips. Barclays estimates this “complementary demand” could generate over $100 billion in incremental value for the classical computing market by 2040 under its bullish scenario.
Misconception 3: All Quantum Hardware Is More or Less the Same—Like Buying Lottery Tickets?
The reality is the赛道 has already diverged, with clear strengths and weaknesses across players.
Quantum hardware approaches are not monolithic. Barclays categorizes mainstream physical qubit platforms into electronic (superconducting, electron spin), atomic (trapped ions, neutral atoms), and photonic systems—highlighting trade-offs among speed, fidelity, coherence time, external infrastructure requirements (cryogenics, lasers, vacuum), and scalability.
Using its “Quantum Benchmarking Model,” Barclays brings clarity to the currently chaotic hardware landscape:
- Current “Fidelity Champion”—Trapped Ions: Represented by Quantinuum and IonQ. Their strength lies in high accuracy and low error rates; the technology is relatively mature.
- Future “Mass-Production Dark Horse”—Silicon Spin: Intel’s chosen path. Though current performance is modest, it leverages existing semiconductor fabrication facilities—making large-scale production easiest once technical hurdles are overcome.
- “Quantity Winner”—Neutral Atoms: Naturally advantageous for stacking large numbers of qubits.
Barclays concludes:
“Our testing shows trapped ions currently lead… but silicon spin’s scalability merits long-term attention.”
Misconception 4: Will Cryptography Be Broken?
Barclays directly douses fears that “quantum computers will crack bank passwords tomorrow”: Overthinking—computational power is still insufficient.
Breaking current RSA encryption requires thousands of perfect logical qubits, whereas humanity’s most advanced devices today possess only dozens. Barclays states bluntly:
“Quantum computers are not yet powerful enough… modern cryptographic standards remain unthreatened.”
Misconception 5: Only “Two or Three Companies” Are Investable in Quantum
Markets often perceive investment opportunities in this field as scarce—limited to just a few well-known names. Yet Barclays mapped the entire value chain and identified 45 publicly listed companies and over 80 private firms, clustered across four main domains:
1) Quantum processors (system sales or QCaaS cloud access)
2) Quantum supply chain (cryogenics, lasers/optics, control electronics, materials, etc.)
3) Quantum chip design and manufacturing (overlapping with traditional semiconductor manufacturing)
4) Ecosystem enablers (cloud, data center infrastructure, quantum simulators, quantum-classical integration: GPUs/CPU/servers, etc.)
The report adopts a framework oriented toward “risk pricing”: In the short term, higher revenue exposure typically correlates with higher technical risk. It broadly classifies technical risk by degree of dependence on a single architecture—high (single-architecture), medium (few architectures), or low (architecture-agnostic).
This also explains why quantum narratives often fixate solely on pure quantum hardware stocks: their revenue exposure is most direct—but path uncertainty is greatest. Meanwhile, supply chain players, semiconductor equipment and EDA vendors, cloud/data center providers, and hybrid integration specialists may better absorb the transmission of “quantum progress → capital expenditures and supporting demand.”
Join TechFlow official community to stay tuned
Telegram:https://t.me/TechFlowDaily
X (Twitter):https://x.com/TechFlowPost
X (Twitter) EN:https://x.com/BlockFlow_News
