What’s actually slowing this PC down?
Pick the symptom - the matching free tool is one click away.
Some links on this page are affiliate links: if you buy through them we may earn a commission, at no extra cost to you.
IonQ (NYSE: IONQ) and Rigetti Computing (Nasdaq: RGTI) are very different quantum-computing stocks: IonQ uses trapped ions and has much larger commercial revenue, while Rigetti uses superconducting circuits and is pursuing faster gates and chiplet-based scaling. At the November 11, 2026 close, IonQ was valued at about $14.8 billion and Rigetti at about $3.7 billion. IonQ looks stronger on current sales, backlog, and capital; Rigetti offers a smaller, higher-risk bet on superconducting hardware. Neither is an operating-profit business, and the higher analyst-target upside reported for Rigetti is not a promise of returns.
At a glance
| Name | Best for | Key spec | Price | Platforms | Checked |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| IonQ (IONQ) | Investors prioritizing commercial traction and a larger balance sheet | Trapped-ion systems; Q3 2026 revenue $173.8 million | $34.06 per share; ~$14.8 billion market cap at Nov. 11 close | Cloud access through Amazon Braket, Microsoft Azure Quantum, and Google Cloud; on-premises systems | November 2026 |
| Rigetti Computing (RGTI) | Investors specifically seeking a higher-risk superconducting and chiplet-scaling bet | Superconducting systems; Q3 2026 revenue $1.4 million | $11.11 per share; ~$3.7 billion market cap at Nov. 11 close | Quantum Cloud Services, Amazon Braket, Azure Quantum, and qBraid; on-premises systems | November 2026 |
Share prices and market capitalizations are dated to the November 11, 2026 close; they can change quickly. Company financial figures are from Q3 2026 reports.
As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.
How do IonQ and Rigetti stocks differ?
The core difference is the combination of hardware approach and business scale. IonQ builds trapped-ion machines and has expanded into semiconductor foundry services; Rigetti builds superconducting processors, fabricates chips in-house, and sells cloud access and systems. In Q3 2026, IonQ reported $173.8 million in revenue, compared with Rigetti’s $1.4 million. That gap matters to investors because it gives IonQ more current commercial activity to assess, while Rigetti’s value depends more heavily on future technical progress and contracts.
IonQ’s revenue includes the SkyWater foundry business, acquired in 2026, so its total is not a clean measure of quantum-computing sales alone. Its Q3 mix was $90.3 million from IonQ Platform and $83.5 million from SkyWater Foundry Services. Rigetti is smaller in revenue and currently has no comparable acquired foundry segment in its reported mix.
Popular on Amazon
- Ideal for Gifting
- Ideal for a bookworm
- Compact for travelling
At the November 11 close, IonQ’s market capitalization was about four times Rigetti’s, but its trailing revenue was roughly 30 times larger. That mismatch helps explain why both stocks can look expensive while Rigetti’s sales multiple is especially demanding. The comparison is not a choice between a profitable incumbent and an unprofitable challenger: both report operating losses and depend on investors accepting substantial execution risk.
What is the difference between trapped-ion and superconducting quantum computers?
IonQ traps charged atoms with electromagnetic fields and manipulates them with lasers; Rigetti encodes qubits in superconducting circuits on silicon chips, which operate at cryogenic temperatures near absolute zero. The approaches involve different engineering trade-offs, and neither company’s reported figures establish a universal hardware winner.
Recommended Free Tools
IonQ emphasizes high two-qubit gate fidelity and all-to-all connectivity. It reported a 99.99% two-qubit gate-fidelity milestone in 2025, described in 2026 coverage as a company-reported record. Rigetti’s Q3 2026 announcement said its Cepheus-1-108Q achieved 99.5% median two-qubit gate fidelity, with 99.6% on an 80-qubit sublattice and 99.7% on a 50-qubit sublattice. These are not directly comparable scores: they differ in date, system, and whether the number is a record milestone or a median measurement on a specific processor. They should not be reduced to a claim that one company has definitively better fidelity.
Rigetti’s superconducting gates are faster. Its company materials describe typical gate speeds of 50–70 nanoseconds; the company said this is about 10,000 times faster than trapped-ion systems. Faster gates can matter for workloads where circuit execution time is important, but speed alone does not establish useful performance. Fidelity, connectivity, error correction, system scale, and the algorithm being run all affect whether a machine can solve a practical problem.
IonQ’s current system story includes Tempo deployments and its 256-qubit Superion system, including planned on-premises installation at an accelerated quantum research center. Its Forte Enterprise systems also remain in the cloud mix. Rigetti’s flagship Cepheus-1-108Q uses 12 nine-qubit chiplets and became generally available through Quantum Cloud Services and Amazon Braket in April 2026. Rigetti also sells the nine-qubit Novera QPU to research labs with the required cryogenic infrastructure.
Both companies publish ambitious roadmaps. IonQ has discussed a goal of two million qubits by 2030. Rigetti’s stated objectives include a system with more than 300 qubits, approximately 99.7% median two-qubit fidelity, and gate speeds below 60 nanoseconds by mid-2028; it has also described a roughly 1,000-qubit system with approximately 99.9% fidelity and gates below 50 nanoseconds in about three years. These are targets, not delivered capabilities or guaranteed schedules. A qubit-count headline is not itself proof of commercially useful quantum advantage.
Which company has more commercial traction?
IonQ has the clearer lead in reported revenue and contracted future work. Rigetti has meaningful research, government, and system opportunities, but its latest quarterly revenue and remaining performance obligations are much smaller. The distinction is important: technical milestones and contract announcements can signal opportunity, but they are not interchangeable with recognized revenue.
Also popular on Amazon
IonQ reported Q3 2026 revenue of $173.8 million, up 336% year over year, and raised its full-year 2026 revenue guidance to $505 million–$515 million. Its $1.2 billion of remaining performance obligations included $689 million for Platform and $479 million for SkyWater. Platform obligations rose from $485 million after about $290 million in new contracts, including roughly $180 million in quantum-computing contracts. RPO is contracted work not yet recognized as revenue; it is not cash already collected and does not eliminate delivery or timing risk. See IonQ’s Q3 2026 results and guidance for the company’s reported figures.
Specific IonQ announcements included a $33 million multi-product contract with South Korea’s SDT and a $25 million agreement with Florida International University involving Superion 256. The company also said NVIDIA would host the first on-premises QPU at its Accelerated Quantum Research Center. IonQ was the only trapped-ion company to advance to Stage C of DARPA’s Quantum Benchmarking Initiative, a program with potential value up to $300 million. That is a potential program value, not revenue guaranteed to IonQ. Its sensing work also includes a $28 million DARPA optical-clock contract for 25 units and a $30 million option for 100 more.
Rigetti reported $1.4 million in Q3 2026 revenue, down from $1.9 million a year earlier. Its nine-month revenue was $10.9 million, up about 110% from $5.2 million. Q3 included $1.265 million of collaborative research and professional services and $146,000 of cloud access; it had no system sales that quarter. System and component sales had been $3.05 million in Q1 and $4.10 million in Q2. Rigetti’s remaining performance obligations were $2.9 million at September 30, 2026—far below IonQ’s reported $1.2 billion. Its approximately $20 million full-year outlook depends on customer acceptance and revenue recognition for an $8.4 million 108-qubit system sold to India’s C-DAC in Q4. That makes the forecast more contingent on a specific milestone.
Do these 3 things before closing this tab:
1Fix the driver behind crashes, sound loss and screen glitches2Clear out junk files and repair common Windows errors3Scan for outdated or missing drivers - takes under a minuteRigetti also received a definitive U.S. Department of Commerce award of up to $100 million under a CHIPS Research and Development Office program, tied to work including miniaturized readout, cryostat architecture, and high-connectivity fabrication. The award is an important potential source of support, but the company had not drawn it as of the Q3 call recap. The Commerce Department received a minority, non-controlling equity stake, according to the earnings-call recap. Rigetti’s Q3 report is available in its financial-results release.
Customer mix also differs. IonQ’s Q3 call summary described its Platform revenue as approximately 65% commercial and 35% international, with about 40% of segment revenue from multi-product customers. A November 2026 columnist reported that more than 90% of Rigetti’s revenue came from government contracts; that figure is commentary, not a breakdown restated in Rigetti’s November 10 release. Rigetti’s named collaborations include U.S. government programs, Hewlett Packard Enterprise, and the Pittsburgh Supercomputing Center.
What do IonQ and Rigetti’s latest financial results say?
IonQ is growing much faster in absolute revenue, but neither company is generating operating profit. Headline GAAP net income is particularly misleading for this comparison because warrant accounting produced large non-cash gains in both companies’ quarterly results.
| Q3 2026 measure | IonQ | Rigetti |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue | $173.8 million; +336% year over year | $1.4 million; compared with $1.9 million a year earlier |
| Operating loss | $433.08 million | $33.2 million |
| GAAP net income (loss) | +$564.0 million, including an $896 million non-cash warrant fair-value gain | −$3.1 million, including a $25.3 million non-cash warrant gain |
| Adjusted/non-GAAP result | Adjusted EBITDA loss of $133.6 million; adjusted EPS −$0.29 | Non-GAAP net loss of $20.5 million; non-GAAP EPS −$0.06 |
| FY2026 outlook | $505 million–$515 million | Approximately $20 million, contingent on C-DAC acceptance and Q4 revenue recognition |
IonQ’s $564 million GAAP profit does not mean its quantum operations made money. The large warrant revaluation gain is non-cash, while the company reported a $433.08 million operating loss and a $133.6 million adjusted EBITDA loss. Its Q3 free cash flow was reported at negative $331.9 million in an earnings-call summary. Investors should distinguish accounting gains from cash generated by operations.
PC Slower Than It Used to Be?
A free scan shows the junk files, broken settings and background clutter dragging Windows down - then fixes them in one click.Free scan · Windows 10 & 11Outdated Drivers Are Slowing You Down
One free scan finds every outdated or missing driver and matches the right update for your exact hardware.Free scan · exact hardware matchAlso popular on Amazon
Rigetti’s small GAAP net loss likewise is not a sign of positive operating economics: it had a $33.2 million operating loss, while a non-cash warrant gain reduced the reported net loss. Its non-GAAP net loss was $20.5 million. Non-GAAP measures can help isolate certain items, but they do not replace the cash-flow statement or operating results.
IonQ’s full-year guidance is a company forecast, not a guarantee, and includes foundry revenue following the SkyWater acquisition. Rigetti’s approximately $20 million outlook is sensitive to Q4 acceptance of the C-DAC system. The comparison should therefore track reported revenue by segment and the conditions attached to forecasts, rather than comparing topline guidance without context.
Which stock is cheaper, IONQ or RGTI?
IonQ is cheaper relative to recent sales, even though it has the larger market capitalization. On trailing-twelve-month revenue figures available around November 11–12, 2026, IonQ’s price-to-sales ratio was roughly 34–38 times, while Rigetti’s was roughly 285–325 times. Neither multiple makes either stock inexpensive by conventional operating-business standards.
| Approximate valuation, Nov. 11–12, 2026 | IONQ | RGTI |
|---|---|---|
| Market capitalization at Nov. 11 close | About $14.8 billion | About $3.7 billion |
| Trailing-twelve-month revenue | $380.44 million | $12.82 million |
| Price-to-sales (TTM) | About 33.8–37.6× | About 285–325× |
| Enterprise value/revenue | About 35.1× | About 295× |
| Price-to-book | About 2.7–2.8× | About 7.0–7.7× |
Valuation table checked November 2026. Ratios vary by data provider, share-count convention, and calculation date; trailing revenue spans Q4 2025 and the first nine months of 2026.
IonQ’s TTM sales include two months of SkyWater after the acquisition closed at the end of July, so the $380.44 million is not solely quantum-computing revenue. Its Q3 segment split helps make the mix visible. Even allowing for that, the reported sales gap is large. Rigetti’s multiple is elevated because its revenue base is still very small relative to its market value.
Using IonQ’s approximately $14.8 billion equity value and its $505 million–$515 million full-year revenue guidance implies a low-30s price-to-sales multiple on guided 2026 revenue, before accounting for cash. Rigetti at about $3.7 billion against approximately $20 million of guided sales remains at a triple-digit sales multiple, even if C-DAC accepts the system and the revenue is recognized. Forward P/E is not useful as a conventional value measure because both companies are expected to report losses.
These ratios do not predict stock returns. A company can grow into a high sales multiple if growth, margins, and cash generation eventually justify it; the multiple can also contract sharply if growth disappoints or investors stop paying for future optionality. A large addressable market is not a forecast of either company’s revenue.
Also popular on Amazon
Which company has the stronger balance sheet—and what about dilution?
IonQ has more capital in dollar terms, while Rigetti also had substantial cash and investments and no debt at September 30, 2026. Both companies are spending ahead of operating profitability, so cash balances must be weighed against burn, investment plans, and possible share issuance.
IonQ reported $1.7 billion in cash, cash equivalents, and investments at September 30. Pro forma for a $2.0 billion equity offering that closed October 16, the company reported about $3.7 billion. The raise provides a large funding cushion, but new equity issuance dilutes existing shareholders; IonQ’s proposed acquisition of cybersecurity firm Elisity, structured as a stock deal, adds another potential source of dilution and integration risk. Its acquisition of SkyWater also changes the company’s business mix and adds execution demands beyond quantum hardware.
Rigetti reported $497.1 million in cash, cash equivalents, and available-for-sale investments, with no debt, at September 30. Its Q3 free cash flow was approximately negative $43.3 million, and capital expenditures were $26.2 million. One third-party estimate translated the quarter’s burn into about 11.3 quarters of cash, but that is a run-rate calculation, not a company guarantee. Spending could rise as Rigetti pursues 300-plus- and 1,000-qubit systems, and the Commerce award had not yet been drawn at the time described in the Q3 call recap.
Both have used equity financing and may issue shares as they fund growth. For IonQ, treat the October offering as completed financing rather than an unverified estimate of shares added; exact dilution depends on the final share and warrant terms. For Rigetti, track future financing filings alongside cash burn and capital expenditures. A large cash balance reduces near-term financing pressure, but it does not prevent permanent loss if a company spends heavily without converting research and development into durable revenue.
Independent reader supportYour contribution helps us test, update, and keep practical guides available for everyone.How volatile are IONQ and RGTI, and does owning both diversify a portfolio?
Both stocks have been highly volatile, and owning both does not provide much diversification from quantum-stock risk. Data available in November 2026 put one-year volatility around 93–95% for IonQ and 96–97% for Rigetti, with one-year betas of about 3.49 and 3.81, respectively. Those measures describe past price behavior; they do not tell investors exactly how either stock will move next.
The Tool Desk
Outbyte PC Repair FREEClear out junk files and repair common Windows errorsFree Scan →Outbyte Driver Updater FREEScan for outdated or missing drivers - takes under a minuteDriver Scan →At the November 11 close, IonQ was down about 37.4% over one year and Rigetti about 64.6%. Their 2026 year-to-date returns were approximately negative 24.1% and negative 49.8%. Both had fallen substantially from prior highs, and their histories include sharp rallies as well as steep declines. Rigetti’s three-year annualized return was reported at about 125%, but that figure follows its post-SPAC collapse and includes an unusually large 2024 calendar gain; it should not be read as a stable growth rate.
The stocks’ one-year daily-return correlation was reported at roughly 0.89–0.91. Correlation is not constant, and it does not mean the shares move by the same amount every day. Still, it indicates that holding both may leave an investor heavily exposed to the same quantum-computing theme, market sentiment, and speculative-growth repricing rather than balancing the risks in a conventional diversified portfolio. The historical comparison data should be treated as backward-looking.
Also popular on Amazon
- It can be a gift option
- Comes with secure packaging
- Helpful in various ways
What do analysts think, and how should investors read price targets?
Analyst views in early November leaned toward IonQ on current traction, while the average target implied more percentage upside for Rigetti from its lower share price. These figures were published before both companies’ latest Q3 results and are dated estimates, not reliable forecasts of what a stock will return.
A TipRanks article dated November 3, before the November 5 IonQ and November 10 Rigetti reports, listed IonQ as Strong Buy with an average 12-month target of $65.45 and Rigetti as Moderate Buy with a $26.57 average target. Those targets implied 132.36% and 149.03% upside from prices at that earlier point. Recalculated against the November 11 closes of $34.06 and $11.11, the arithmetic upside is approximately 92% for IonQ and 139% for Rigetti—still only an illustration of the distance to old targets, not a probability-weighted return estimate. Targets can lag new results, and analysts may revise them.
In October, Motley Fool contributor Robert Izquierdo preferred IonQ, citing its revenue trend and lower sales multiple. An early-November columnist also favored IonQ over a five-year horizon on the basis of lower perceived risk, growth, and capital. Another July commentary cautioned that both companies looked overvalued despite IonQ’s commercial edge. These are individual opinions, not a regulator or standards-body ranking of the stocks. Read the dated analyst-target comparison with its pre-earnings timing in mind.
Which quantum computing stock may suit your investment thesis?
IonQ may fit an investor who wants the larger, better-funded platform with more visible current revenue and backlog, and who accepts a high valuation, operating losses, acquisition integration, and dilution risk. Rigetti may fit an investor who specifically wants exposure to superconducting hardware, chiplet scaling, and a smaller company with potential contract-driven upside—and who can accept sub-scale revenue, a very high sales multiple, and the Q4 C-DAC acceptance condition.
That is a framework, not a recommendation. Investors focused on income, low volatility, or near-term GAAP operating profit should recognize that neither stock meets those goals on the figures available here. Quantum hardware development is technically difficult, timelines can slip, customer acceptance may be delayed, and future capital needs can dilute shareholders. Even the broader economic opportunity often quoted for quantum computing—$1.3 trillion–$2.7 trillion of potential economic value by 2035, with $60 billion–$100 billion attributed to producers in secondary reporting—is not a revenue forecast for either company.
For a head-to-head decision, compare the latest segment revenue, cash flow, contract conversion, and share count at each new filing. A technical milestone matters most when it contributes to customer demand, delivered systems, recurring access revenue, or a credible path toward lower cost and useful performance. The key question is not simply which machine has more qubits or faster gates, but whether the company can turn its particular hardware approach into repeatable commercial economics.
Quick wins for a faster PC:
Scan for outdated or missing drivers - takes under a minuteDriver Scan →Repair Windows errors before they cause bigger problemsFix Now →Fix the driver behind crashes, sound loss and screen glitchesFind Drivers →How we compared the stocks
This comparison uses company-reported Q3 2026 financial results and guidance, company disclosures on hardware and contracts, and market and valuation snapshots dated November 11–12, 2026. It weighs modality, commercial traction, manufacturing, balance sheets and dilution, customer mix, valuation, and historical risk. Technical fidelity figures are reported with their dates and measurement context; they are not treated as a shared benchmark. Share prices, market caps, multiples, and analyst targets are snapshots that can change, and this article is not investment advice.
Frequently Asked Questions
Do analyst price targets mean IONQ or RGTI is likely to rise by that amount?
No. A target is an analyst’s estimate for a stated time horizon, not a probability or guaranteed return. The targets cited here were published before the companies’ Q3 reports, so they may not reflect the subsequent results or market prices.
Does the projected quantum-computing market size translate into sales for IonQ or Rigetti?
Not directly. Estimates of broad economic value describe potential benefits across industries, not revenue available to hardware makers, and they do not specify what share either company could capture.
What should I check in the next earnings report if I own either stock?
Look for whether announced contracts convert into recognized revenue and cash, whether customer acceptance conditions are met, and how operating cash use and share count change. Those measures can show whether technical progress is becoming a more durable business.
Free tools Windows power users keep installed
One-click scans. No signup required.
