From Two of the Founders of Quantum Computing, Inc. a Comprehensive Quantum Computing Investment Strategy: 10-Year Horizon (2025–2035)

Executive Summary

The quantum computing sector represents a transformational investment opportunity spanning three distinct time horizons, each favoring different technologies and companies. This report synthesizes technical assessments of neutral atom, photonic, and trapped-ion quantum computing modalities alongside detailed company analysis to provide actionable investment recommendations for near-term (0–3 years), mid-term (3–5 years), and long-term (5–10 years) allocations.

Key Finding: Post-quantum cryptography (PQC) companies like BTQ Technologies offer the most conservative, de-risked quantum investment for 2025–2028, while quantum computing hardware leaders (IonQ, Quantinuum, QuEra) provide exposure to the larger long-term opportunity requiring fault-tolerant systems by 2029–2033.

Market Overview: Quantum Technology to 2035

Market Size Projections

The global quantum technology market is projected to reach $97B by 2035, with quantum computing capturing the majority:

• Quantum Computing: $28–72B (2035), up from ~$4B (2024), at 36–45% CAGR
• Quantum Communication: $11–15B (2035)
• Quantum Sensing: $7–10B (2035)

Cumulative value creation across industries could exceed $1T by 2035, with vendor revenue reaching $50B over the period. By 2040, the market may reach $173–198B, with economic impact of $450–850B globally.

Critical Timeline Inflection Points

• 2025–2027 (NISQ Era): Systems with limited error correction demonstrate value in specialized applications; early commercial deployments via cloud and on-prem; PQC becomes mandatory for government and financial institutions.
• 2027–2030 (Fault-Tolerant Transition): Error-corrected processors with 100–1,000 logical qubits become available. IBM targets Quantum Starling (200 logical qubits, 100M gates) by 2029. Quantinuum aims for Apollo (universal fault-tolerant) by 2029. IonQ projects 2M physical qubits and 80,000 logical qubits by 2030. PsiQuantum targets million-qubit photonic systems by 2029.
• 2031–2035 (Commercial Deployment Era): Fault-tolerant systems with 10,000+ logical qubits achieve broad commercial deployment across drug discovery, materials, finance, and AI acceleration; market reaches $28–72B annually.
• 2035–2040 (Maturity and Scale): Million-qubit systems; quantum networking connects systems into a quantum internet; market potentially $173–198B.

Technology Assessment: Hardware Modalities Comparison

Trapped-Ion Quantum Computing

Technical Characteristics

• Qubits: Individual charged atoms (ions) suspended in electromagnetic traps
• Gate fidelity: 99.99% (IonQ), 99.97% (Quantinuum)
• Coherence times: Minutes to hours (longest)
• Connectivity: All-to-all via ion shuttling
• Operating temperature: ~10 K
• Scalability: Ion-trap arrays, modular architectures

Advantages

• Highest fidelities enable fault tolerance with fewer qubits
• Proven error correction (Quantinuum universal fault-tolerant gates)
• Long coherence reduces error accumulation
• All-to-all simplifies algorithms
• Mid-temperature operation eases engineering vs. mK systems

Challenges

• Slower gate speeds (microseconds) vs. superconducting (nanoseconds)
• Scaling to 1,000+ ions requires advanced trap engineering
• Complex laser control systems

Leaders: IonQ (NASDAQ: IONQ), Quantinuum (private, expected IPO 2025–2026), Oxford Ionics (acquired by IonQ)
Commercial Readiness: Highest; revenue systems deployed; fault-tolerant error correction demonstrated.

Neutral Atom Quantum Computing

Technical Characteristics

• Qubits: Neutral atoms (Rb/Sr/Cs) trapped by focused lasers
• Gate fidelity: 99.5–99.9% (improving)
• Coherence: Very long (up to ~40 s demonstrated)
• Connectivity: All-to-all via atom shuttling; flexible 2D/3D arrays
• Operating temperature: Room temperature (vacuum chamber required)
• Scalability: Optical tweezer arrays enabling massive parallelization

Advantages

• Identical “natural” qubits, no fabrication defects
• Room-temperature operation reduces infrastructure cost
• Exceptional scalability (1,180+ qubits demonstrated)
• Algorithmic fault tolerance (AFT) breakthroughs (e.g., QuEra 7,900× speedup)
• Low energy vs. classical HPC; flexible layouts

Challenges

• Historically slower gate ops (AFT mitigates)
• Precise laser control at scale
• Newer commercial maturity vs. trapped ions

Leaders: QuEra (private; $230M Series B), Atom Computing (private), Pasqal (private), BTQ/QPerfect (NASDAQ: BTQ; software/control)
Commercial Readiness: High and improving; systems deployed (AIST, UK NQCC); aiming FT 2027–2030.

Photonic Quantum Computing

Technical Characteristics

• Qubits: Photons or squeezed states
• Gate fidelity: Variable; many approaches probabilistic
• Coherence: Excellent for transmission; noise-resistant
• Connectivity: Native fiber networking
• Operating temperature: Room temp for most components (some cryo detectors)
• Scalability: Silicon photonics, modular networking

Advantages

• Room-temperature for most components
• High-speed, light-speed operations
• Long-distance coherence; noise resistance
• Potential mass production via silicon photonics
• Natural networking over fiber
• Low power vs. classical

Challenges

• Photon loss primary error source
• Detector efficiency limits
• Probabilistic gates require heavy multiplexing
• Complex error correction
• Photon source consistency

Leaders: PsiQuantum (private), Xanadu (SPAC pending), Quandela, ORCA Computing
Commercial Readiness: Lower near-term, high long-term; targeting utility-scale 2027–2029; strong government backing.

Technology Comparison Summary

Implication: Trapped-ion = lowest technical risk with proven systems; Neutral atom = best scalability + near-term AFT; Photonic = longest-term manufacturing/networking upside with higher near-term risk.

Near-Term Investment Strategy (0–3 Years: 2025–2028)

Market Dynamics 2025–2028

PQC Dominates Near-Term Returns
Government mandates create forced demand:

• U.S. federal: PQC in procurement by July 2025, full migration by 2035
• EU critical infrastructure: Implementation begins end-2026, protection by 2030
• Financial services: Urgent need to protect $2.4T+ crypto and banking rails
• Market size: $0.88B (2024) → $4.6–8.5B (2030) at 38–45% CAGR

Quantum Hardware: Early revenue, high burns

• ~$1–1.5B sector revenue (2025) vs. $0.5–1.0B combined burn; utility limited to NISQ and early hybrid workflows.

Top Near-Term Investment: BTQ Technologies (NASDAQ: BTQ)

Thesis: Most conservative 2025–2028 quantum exposure via mandated PQC; asset-light model; near-term revenue catalysts.

Profile

• Market cap: ~$1B (Nov 2025) | TTM revenue: ~$650K (pilot stage)
• Cash: C$45–50M post $40M raise (Sep 2025) | Burn: ~$6M/yr
• Runway: 5–6 years

Positioning

1. Standards leadership: Chairs QuINSA Quantum Communications WG; QSSN on ITU/ISO/ETSI/IEEE tracks; U.S. PQFIF cites QSSN.
2. Tokenization niche: Secures privileged ops (mint/burn/admin) for USDC/USDT/JPM token rails; gap vs. traditional cyber vendors.
3. Korea validation: Danal PoC; Finger Inc pilot; ICTK partnership (QCIM chips, target 1M sigs/s).
4. Products: Bitcoin Quantum Core (testnet Q4’25, mainnet Q2’26); QSSN pilots → 2026; QCIM chips; QPerfect MIMIQ/QLU software.
5. Profit path: Transaction revenue, 70–90% gross margin; breakeven at $15–20M revenue.

Catalysts 2025–2028

• Q4’25: Bitcoin Quantum testnet
• Q2’26: Mainnet; Korea QSSN decisions
• 2026: QCIM prototypes
• 2026–2027: QuINSA standards adoption
• 2027–2028: PQC mandates scale deployments

Risks

• Multi-track execution; competition (IBM, PANW, Thales)
• Low current revenue vs. valuation; Korea conversion critical

Allocation: 40–50% of quantum sleeve (aggressive) / 50–70% (conservative quantum-only)

Secondary Near-Term Holdings

IonQ (NASDAQ: IONQ) — 30–40%

• $110M revenue (2025), 222% YoY; $3.5B cash; 99.99% gate fidelity; acquisitions (Oxford Ionics, Vector Atomic).
• Catalysts: 2026 Tempo deployments; 2027 dozens of logical qubits; 2028 path to hundreds.
• Risks: High valuation; profitability ~2030+.

D-Wave (NYSE: QBTS) — 10–20% speculative

• Revenue doubling; large cash; EU contracts; annealing value; developing fluxonium gates.
• Limits: Niche TAM; high losses.

Near-Term Portfolio Construction (2025–2028)

• Conservative (2–5% of total portfolio): 70% BTQ / 20% IONQ / 10% cash
• Moderate (5–10%): 50% BTQ / 35% IONQ / 15% D-Wave or IBM/MSFT exposure
• Aggressive (10–15%): 40% BTQ / 35% IONQ / 15% D-Wave / 10% reserve

Expected Returns 2025–2028

• BTQ: 5–10× if execution succeeds
• IonQ: 2–3× with milestones
• D-Wave: 2–4× if gate-model gains traction
• Portfolio: 3–6× blended if thesis plays out

Mid-Term Investment Strategy (3–5 Years: 2028–2030)

Market Dynamics 2028–2030

Fault-Tolerant Quantum Emerges

• 100–1,000 logical qubits; first quantum advantage in pharma/materials/finance; hybrid supercomputing; QCaaS expands; consolidation accelerates.

Market Characteristics

• QC revenue: $8–15B (2030) | PQC: $4.6–8.5B (maturing)
• Major IPOs (Quantinuum, PsiQuantum, QuEra, Pasqal); Gov’t spend $10B+ by 2030.

Top Mid-Term Investment: Quantinuum (Expected IPO 2025–2026)

Thesis: Global technical leader; universal fault-tolerant gates; clear path to utility by 2029–2030.

Profile

• Expected IPO valuation: $10–15B; Honeywell + SoftBank backing; trapped-ion QCCD.

Technical Superiority

1. First universal FT gates (2025); logical error < physical error
2. H2 >2M quantum volume; Helios junction trap system (Nov 2025)
3. Firsts: 12 logical qubits (with Microsoft); certifiable QRNG; NVIDIA GH integration

Roadmap

• 2025: Helios (50+ high-fidelity logical qubits)
• 2026–2028: Dozens of logical qubits
• 2029: Apollo universal FT system (hundreds of logical qubits)
• 2033: Lumos utility-scale (thousands)

Commercial

• Partners: SoftBank, JPMorgan, DARPA QBI Stage B

Timing & Returns

• Monitor IPO; early entry; 3–5× by 2030, 10–20× by 2035 if leadership holds
• Allocation: 30–40% of quantum sleeve upon IPO

Secondary Mid-Term Holdings

IonQ — 25–35%

• Roadmap to 2M physical/80k logical by 2030; networking, sensing; federal base.
• Catalysts: hundreds of logical qubits 2028–2029; FT approach 2029–2030.

QuEra — 15–25% (assume IPO 2026–2027)

• AFT cuts runtime 10–100×; 7,900× demo; largest public QC; AWS/AIST/NQCC deployments.
• Roadmap: FT prototypes 2026–2027; hundreds of logical qubits 2028–2030.
• Returns: 4–7× by 2030 if AFT translates.

BTQ — 10–20%

• PQC cash flows; QPerfect software; Korea/APAC foothold; profitability by 2028.
• Catalysts: QLU on neutral atoms 2028; QSSN expansion; QCIM scaling.

Mid-Term Portfolio Construction (2028–2030)

• Conservative (3–7% total): 40% Quantinuum / 30% IonQ / 20% BTQ / 10% diversified
• Moderate (7–12%): 35% Quantinuum / 30% IonQ / 20% QuEra / 15% BTQ
• Aggressive (12–20%): 30% Quantinuum / 30% IonQ / 25% QuEra / 10% BTQ / 5% emerging

Expected Returns 2028–2030

• Quantinuum 3–5×; IonQ 2–4×; QuEra 4–7×; BTQ 2–3×; Portfolio 3–5×.

Long-Term Investment Strategy (5–10 Years: 2030–2035)

Market Dynamics 2030–2035

Utility-Scale Maturity

• FT systems with 1,000–10,000+ logical qubits; clear advantage across industries; QCaaS mainstream; 3–5 dominant platforms; early quantum internet.

Market Characteristics

• QC market: $28–72B annually (2035)
• Total quantum: $97B; $1T+ economic value; $50B vendor revenue; 840k jobs

Long-Term Technology Winners

Trapped Ion — Sustained Leadership
Use cases: Defense, pharma, finance, research.
Leaders: Quantinuum, IonQ.

Neutral Atom — Scalability Champion
Use cases: Logistics/optimization, climate modeling, AI acceleration, materials.
Leaders: QuEra, Atom Computing, Pasqal.

Photonic — Distributed Networking
Use cases: Quantum internet, distributed clusters, secure comms, hybrid links.
Leaders: PsiQuantum (if successful), Xanadu, Quandela.

Top Long-Term Approach: Diversified Platform Holdings

Core Allocations (2030–2035)

• Quantinuum — 30–35%: “Quantum Microsoft” full-stack; Apollo/Lumos systems; $3–5B revenue; $50–100B market cap; 15–30× from IPO.
• IonQ — 25–30%: Diversified QC/networking/sensing; $2–4B revenue; $40–80B cap; 8–15× from 2025 levels.
• QuEra — 20–25%: Neutral-atom scale; $1.5–3B revenue; $25–50B cap; 10–20× from IPO.
• PsiQuantum/Photonic — 15–20%: Contingent on 2027–2029 milestones; 5–10× potential (high risk).

Long-Term Portfolio Construction (2030–2035)

• Conservative (5–10% total): 35% Quantinuum / 30% IonQ / 20% QuEra / 15% diversified tech
• Moderate (10–15%): 30% Quantinuum / 25% IonQ / 25% QuEra / 20% Photonic
• Aggressive (15–25%): 30% Quantinuum / 25% IonQ / 25% QuEra / 15% Photonic / 5% emerging

Expected Returns 2030–2035

• Early 2030s bull: 3–5×; mid-2030s maturity: additional 2–3×; cumulative 20–50× (2025–2035) for disciplined multi-phase investors.

Comprehensive 10-Year Strategy Summary

Phased Deployment

Years 0–3 (2025–2028): PQC + early hardware

• 50% BTQ / 35% IonQ / 15% D-Wave or cash
• Target return: 3–6×; deploy 30–50% of intended allocation; prep for Quantinuum/QuEra IPOs.

Years 3–5 (2028–2030): Fault-tolerant transition

• 35% Quantinuum / 30% IonQ / 20% QuEra / 15% BTQ
• Target return: 3–5× (phase baseline); deploy remaining allocation.

Years 5–10 (2030–2035): Utility-scale commercialization

• 30% Quantinuum / 25% IonQ / 25% QuEra / 15% Photonic / 5% emerging
• Target return: 3–5× (phase baseline); rebalance as revenues clarify.

Cumulative Returns

• Conservative: 15–25× (CAGR ~32–37%)
• Moderate: 40–60× (CAGR ~44–49%)
• Aggressive: 80–120× (CAGR ~54–59%)

Downside Scenarios

• PQC commoditization → BTQ underperforms; 0.5–1× (2025–2028)
• FT delayed to 2033–2035 → flat–2× mid-term; 5–10× overall
• Disruptive modality breakthrough → 3–8× with high volatility

Risk Management and Portfolio Principles

Diversification Across Time Horizons

• Avoid >50% concentration in a single company (exception: BTQ in conservative quantum-only sleeves near-term).
• Maintain 10–20% cash within the quantum sleeve for IPOs/pullbacks/M&A.
• Rebalance at 2028 and 2030 phase transitions.

Technology Risk Mitigation

• Avoid single-modality concentration; maintain trapped-ion, neutral-atom, photonic exposure.
• Prioritize executed results over promises; track quarterly milestones (fidelity, qubits, error correction, logical qubits).

Financial Risk

• Favor >3-year cash runways (IonQ, Quantinuum, QuEra).
• By 2028, sub-$50M revenue names <20% of sleeve.
• By 2030, tilt to profitable/near-profitable names.

Exit Strategy

• Take partial profits at 5×; rebalance at 10× to original weights.
• 2033–2035: consider rotation toward quantum sensing/networking/software as growth decelerates.
• Maintain core stakes in 2–3 leaders for 2035–2040 exposure.

Company-by-Company Investment Playbook

BTQ Technologies (NASDAQ: BTQ)

• Buy: $5–10; Init: 40–50% of quantum sleeve (years 0–3)
• Add: Bitcoin Quantum mainnet (Q2’26); Korea QSSN contract; >$10M quarterly revenue
• Reduce: Korea pilots fail by end-2026; competitors win tokenization; >100× forward revenue
• Target Exit: $35–50 by 2028 (5–7×); $70–100 by 2030 (10–14×)
• Hold: 2028–2030 if profitable with 30–40%+ YoY growth

IonQ (NASDAQ: IONQ)

• Buy: $25–40; Init: 30–40% of quantum sleeve (years 0–3)
• Add: >100% YoY revenue; 100+ logical qubits (2028–2029); major enterprise wins; >30% pullbacks
• Reduce: <50% YoY growth without profit path; tech leadership lost; >50× forward revenue
• Exit/Trim: Partial at $100–150 by 2030; hold core through 2035

Quantinuum (Expected IPO 2025–2026)

• Entry: 30–35% of quantum sleeve at/near IPO
• Add: Apollo launch (2029); Lumos (2033); first commercial advantage; major pharma partnerships
• Reduce: FT delays >18 months; rivals close gap; governance uncertainty
• Target: Partial at $50–80B cap (5–8× from $10B IPO); hold core through 2035+

QuEra (Expected IPO 2026–2027)

• Entry: 15–25% of quantum sleeve at/near IPO
• Add: 100+ logical qubits via AFT (2028–2029); HPC/national lab deployments; >$100M annual contracts
• Reduce: AFT advantage fails to commercialize; trapped-ion outscales; dilution risk
• Target: Partial at $15–25B cap (5–10× from $2–3B IPO); hold through 2033–2035

PsiQuantum (Expected IPO 2026–2028)

• Approach: Wait-and-see; invest only if all triggers met:
  1. Brisbane/Chicago facility operational by end-2027
  2. Clear million-qubit <5-year path
  3. At least one real application demonstrated
• If met: Allocate 10–15% of quantum sleeve post-IPO; reassess quarterly
• If not by 2028: No position; reallocate to Xanadu or diversified exposure
• Target: 3–5× by 2035 if successful

100,000 physical qubits with error correction

Conclusion: The Quantum Investment Thesis

Core Insights

1. PQC is the lowest-risk quantum exposure for 2025–2028; BTQ’s standards leadership and tokenization niche create near-term opportunity.
2. Trapped-ion (IonQ, Quantinuum) is the most proven path to fault tolerance; core positions across horizons are warranted.
3. Neutral atom (QuEra, Atom) offers superior scalability and fastest path to 1,000–10,000 logical qubits; likely leader in large-scale applications by 2030–2035.
4. Photonic (PsiQuantum, Xanadu) is highest-risk/highest-reward; allocate after concrete utility-scale proof.
5. Diversify across modalities and horizons; use-case leadership may differ by vertical.

The 10-Year Opportunity
Near-term forced demand (PQC), mid-term technical inflection (FT 2028–2030), and long-term transformational applications (drug discovery, AI acceleration, climate) create multiple entry points across risk profiles. Disciplined, phased allocation can target 20–120× cumulative returns over a decade with managed risk.

Final Recommendation

• Start with BTQ (40–50% of quantum sleeve) for mandated PQC revenue.
• Build a core IonQ position (30–40%) for proven execution and diversified quantum revenue.
• Prepare capital for Quantinuum IPO (30–35% future allocation).
• Monitor QuEra IPO (15–25% future allocation) given AFT leadership.
• Be skeptical on photonics until utility-scale demonstrations (2027–2029).
• Rebalance at 2028 and 2030 phase gates based on progress and revenues.

Disclaimer

This report represents analysis and opinions based on publicly available information as of November 2025. Quantum computing is an emerging technology with significant technical and commercial risks. Investors should conduct their own due diligence, consult financial advisors, and invest only risk capital. Past performance and projections do not guarantee future results.