{
  "id": "oai:papers.qnfo.org:jpcub-competitive-landscape",
  "slug": "jpcub-competitive-landscape",
  "title": "JPCUB Competitive Landscape v2.0: System-Level Joules-per-Solution Estimates for 17 Quantum Computing Platforms from Published Specifications",
  "authors": [
    "Rowan Brad Quni-Gudzinas"
  ],
  "abstract": "The JPCUB P0 protocol (https://papers.qnfo.org/papers/joules-per-solution-metric/) defines the joules-per-solution metric — total system energy per correct answer — as a universal, physics-grounded benchmark for computational platforms. The qwav.tech competitive landscape displays six platforms with one published measurement (IBM Eagle at $0.89$ J/solution) and five entries listed as \"Not yet measured\" or \"design target.\" This paper v2.0 expands the landscape to 17 platforms — 13 gate-model quantum processors spanning three architectures (superconducting, trapped-ion, neutral-atom) from 7 vendors, plus 4 non-gate-model or pre-commercial entries. JPCUB estimates are computed from published specifications using a consistent system-level power model. The ranking reveals that gate speed — not cooling cost, not qubit count, not fidelity alone — is the dominant factor in joules-per-solution across architectures. Trapped-ion platforms, despite room-temperature operation eliminating the dilution refrigerator, rank lowest because microsecond-scale gate times (approximately 125× slower than superconducting) produce execution energies that overwhelm the cooling-power advantage. Neutral atoms emerge as the most balanced architecture, with Rydberg-gate speeds in the microsecond range and room-temperature operation achieving JPCUB estimates competitive with superconducting platforms at one-quarter the system power. [speculative — all non-IBM values are model-derived estimates, not empirically measured]",
  "abstract_markdown": "The JPCUB P0 protocol (https://papers.qnfo.org/papers/joules-per-solution-metric/) defines the joules-per-solution metric — total system energy per correct answer — as a universal, physics-grounded benchmark for computational platforms. The qwav.tech competitive landscape displays six platforms with one published measurement (IBM Eagle at $0.89$ J/solution) and five entries listed as \"Not yet measured\" or \"design target.\" This paper v2.0 expands the landscape to 17 platforms — 13 gate-model quantum processors spanning three architectures (superconducting, trapped-ion, neutral-atom) from 7 vendors, plus 4 non-gate-model or pre-commercial entries. JPCUB estimates are computed from published specifications using a consistent system-level power model. The ranking reveals that gate speed — not cooling cost, not qubit count, not fidelity alone — is the dominant factor in joules-per-solution across architectures. Trapped-ion platforms, despite room-temperature operation eliminating the dilution refrigerator, rank lowest because microsecond-scale gate times (approximately $125\\times$ slower than superconducting) produce execution energies that overwhelm the cooling-power advantage. Neutral atoms emerge as the most balanced architecture, with Rydberg-gate speeds in the microsecond range and room-temperature operation achieving JPCUB estimates competitive with superconducting platforms at one-quarter the system power. $[$speculative — all non-IBM values are model-derived estimates, not empirically measured$]$",
  "date": "2026-08-06",
  "first_published": "2026-08-06",
  "last_revised": "2026-08-06T00:00:00Z",
  "modified": "2026-08-06T00:00:00Z",
  "version": "2.3.0",
  "version_count": 1,
  "language": "en",
  "keywords": [
    "JPCUB",
    "joules per solution",
    "quantum computing benchmarking",
    "energy efficiency",
    "competitive landscape",
    "superconducting qubits",
    "trapped ions",
    "neutral atoms",
    "quantum annealing",
    "QWAV"
  ],
  "quality_tags": [
    "High-quality scholarly research",
    "open-access scholarly work",
    "versioned research publication"
  ],
  "quality_label": "High-quality scholarly research",
  "quality_basis": "QNFO publisher classification for open-access, versioned research with a public revision history and reader correction channel; this is not a claim of independent peer review.",
  "quality_evidence_url": "https://qnfo.org/about",
  "peer_review_status": "Not independently peer-reviewed",
  "resource_type": "ScholarlyArticle",
  "doi": null,
  "doi_url": null,
  "url": "https://papers.qnfo.org/papers/jpcub-competitive-landscape",
  "license_url": "https://legal.qnfo.org/",
  "license_spdx": null,
  "sha256": "62ab2e63153a847ec21b0f78f3aae3eba7afcad9da72a83a600e5272883ecf69",
  "version_url": "https://papers.qnfo.org/papers/jpcub-competitive-landscape/v/2.3.0",
  "datacite": {
    "schemaVersion": "http://datacite.org/schema/kernel-4",
    "identifiers": [
      {
        "identifier": "https://papers.qnfo.org/papers/jpcub-competitive-landscape",
        "identifierType": "URL"
      }
    ],
    "creators": [
      {
        "name": "Rowan Brad Quni-Gudzinas",
        "nameType": "Personal",
        "nameIdentifiers": [
          {
            "nameIdentifier": "https://orcid.org/0009-0002-4317-5604",
            "nameIdentifierScheme": "ORCID",
            "schemeUri": "https://orcid.org"
          }
        ]
      }
    ],
    "titles": [
      {
        "title": "JPCUB Competitive Landscape v2.0: System-Level Joules-per-Solution Estimates for 17 Quantum Computing Platforms from Published Specifications"
      }
    ],
    "publisher": "QNFO",
    "publicationYear": "2026",
    "resourceType": {
      "resourceTypeGeneral": "Text",
      "resourceType": "ScholarlyArticle"
    },
    "subjects": [
      {
        "subject": "JPCUB"
      },
      {
        "subject": "joules per solution"
      },
      {
        "subject": "quantum computing benchmarking"
      },
      {
        "subject": "energy efficiency"
      },
      {
        "subject": "competitive landscape"
      },
      {
        "subject": "superconducting qubits"
      },
      {
        "subject": "trapped ions"
      },
      {
        "subject": "neutral atoms"
      },
      {
        "subject": "quantum annealing"
      },
      {
        "subject": "QWAV"
      },
      {
        "subject": "High-quality scholarly research",
        "subjectScheme": "QNFO publisher classification",
        "schemeUri": "https://qnfo.org/about"
      },
      {
        "subject": "open-access scholarly work",
        "subjectScheme": "QNFO publisher classification",
        "schemeUri": "https://qnfo.org/about"
      },
      {
        "subject": "versioned research publication",
        "subjectScheme": "QNFO publisher classification",
        "schemeUri": "https://qnfo.org/about"
      }
    ],
    "dates": [
      {
        "date": "2026-08-06",
        "dateType": "Issued"
      },
      {
        "date": "2026-08-06",
        "dateType": "Updated"
      }
    ],
    "language": "en",
    "version": "2.3.0",
    "rightsList": [
      {
        "rightsUri": "https://legal.qnfo.org/"
      }
    ],
    "descriptions": [
      {
        "description": "The JPCUB P0 protocol (https://papers.qnfo.org/papers/joules-per-solution-metric/) defines the joules-per-solution metric — total system energy per correct answer — as a universal, physics-grounded benchmark for computational platforms. The qwav.tech competitive landscape displays six platforms with one published measurement (IBM Eagle at $0.89$ J/solution) and five entries listed as \"Not yet measured\" or \"design target.\" This paper v2.0 expands the landscape to 17 platforms — 13 gate-model quantum processors spanning three architectures (superconducting, trapped-ion, neutral-atom) from 7 vendors, plus 4 non-gate-model or pre-commercial entries. JPCUB estimates are computed from published specifications using a consistent system-level power model. The ranking reveals that gate speed — not cooling cost, not qubit count, not fidelity alone — is the dominant factor in joules-per-solution across architectures. Trapped-ion platforms, despite room-temperature operation eliminating the dilution refrigerator, rank lowest because microsecond-scale gate times (approximately 125× slower than superconducting) produce execution energies that overwhelm the cooling-power advantage. Neutral atoms emerge as the most balanced architecture, with Rydberg-gate speeds in the microsecond range and room-temperature operation achieving JPCUB estimates competitive with superconducting platforms at one-quarter the system power. [speculative — all non-IBM values are model-derived estimates, not empirically measured]",
        "descriptionType": "Abstract"
      },
      {
        "description": "Publisher quality classification: High-quality scholarly research. QNFO publisher classification for open-access, versioned research with a public revision history and reader correction channel; this is not a claim of independent peer review.",
        "descriptionType": "Other"
      },
      {
        "description": "Peer review status: Not independently peer-reviewed",
        "descriptionType": "Other"
      }
    ],
    "formats": [
      "text/html"
    ]
  }
}