Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Quantum processors are often compared by the number of physical qubits they contain. That number, however, does not by itself indicate whether a processor can execute a useful computation reliably. Qubit coherence, gate and measurement fidelity, connectivity, control infrastructure, fabrication yield, and the overhead of quantum error correction all influence practical capability. This paper presents a structured comparative review of six major quantum-computing modalities: superconducting circuits, trapped ions, photonic systems, silicon-spin qubits, neutral atoms, and topological approaches. It examines their physical implementations, operational strengths, engineering constraints, and prospects for scaling. Particular attention is given to surface-code error correction and the 105-qubit Willow processor result reported by Google Quantum AI, which demonstrated below-threshold surface-code memory and a logical-error suppression factor of 2.14 ± 0.02 when code distance increased by two. The paper also considers cryogenic control, wiring, modular interconnects, fabrication variability, real-time decoding, and the Indian National Quantum Mission. The review finds that progress towards fault tolerance is best assessed through logical performance and system-level engineering rather than physical-qubit count alone. No modality currently removes the need to address scaling overhead, reliable operations, and application-level advantage
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Dalvi et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: