Live Demo Pre-loaded with real platform data · Read-only · Run Analysis requires access
Request Live Access
Intelligence Platform · Mahaffey (2026)
Demo Mode
Strategic Intelligence BOARDROOM
Engineering Analysis DUAL ENGINE
Platform Selection
Select a platform to load published data. Active platforms are pre-filled and ready to run.
Published Gate Error
Published value pre-filled. Click Run Analysis to use this, or clear and enter your own value.
▸ Optional Data (improves analysis)
How long a qubit holds its state.
Gate error, temperature (mK), year — of an older chip from the same company.
IBM: 2.0 · Google: 3.3 · Quantinuum: 6.5 · Oxford: 0.1. Leave blank to use class default.
Quantinuum Helios 98Q
Ion Trap Class A (Quantinuum, IonQ) · 1 mK · p₂Q = 7.900e-4 · Ransford et al., arXiv:2511.05465, Nov 2025. Quantinuum commercial launch Nov 6 2025.
IAM Performance Metric
7.9030e-04
Lower is better. World best 2Q gate: 8.40e-05 (Oxford Ionics / IonQ, 2025)
Status
QEC NOW
At A = 7.903e-4, this platform has crossed the QEC threshold and can deploy quantum error correction today. Fault-tolerance target ~6.6 yr away at current pace.
Error correction (score < 0.001000) ✓ CROSSED
Fault tolerance (score < 0.000100) ~6.6 yr (2033)
IAM Competitive Index
  • 18.400e-05Oxford Ionics EQC (2025)EC FT
  • 27.903e-04Quantinuum Helios 98QEC
  • 31.501e-03Google Willow 105Q (2024)
  • 42.002e-03Quantinuum H2 56Q (2024)
  • 52.152e-03IBM Nighthawk 120Q (2026)
  • 63.005e-03IonQ Forte 36Q (2024)
  • 73.005e-03QuEra Gemini 3000Q (2025)
  • 87.025e-03Rigetti Ankaa-3 84Q (2024)
  • 97.599e-03IBM Heron R2 156Q (2024)
  • 108.032e-03QuEra Gemini 260Q (2025)
IAM Cooling Assessment
At 1 mK → 0.5 mK
1.53×
improvement in error rate
Sensitivity: LOW
Architecture is weakly sensitive to temperature. Gate design is the primary lever.
IAM Thermal Analysis — What Cooling Does to Performance
Temp (mK)Error ratevs. currentStatus
0.55.1696e-041.53×✓ EC viable
1.07.9000e-04baseline← your operating point
2.01.2072e-030.65×
5.02.1140e-030.37×
8.02.8176e-030.28×
10.03.2292e-030.24×
12.03.6097e-030.22×
20.04.9312e-030.16×
25.05.6508e-030.14×
50.08.6236e-030.09×
100.01.3150e-020.06×
300.02.5596e-020.03×
IAM Trajectory Analysis — Where This Platform is Heading
Improvement rate: IAM Performance Metric halves every 0.75 years (Ion A class default — Quantinuum observed pace).
YearIAM Performance MetricIAM Competitive IndexMilestone
20260.0007903 of 10
20270.0003122 of 10
20280.0001232 of 10
20294.862e-051 of 10★ Fault-tolerance target reached
20317.577e-061 of 10
20367.263e-081 of 10

IAM Technical Assessment — Plain Language

ERROR CORRECTION VIABLE: This platform has crossed the error correction threshold. Quantum error correction algorithms can be deployed today. The next milestone — full fault-tolerant operation — is projected around 2033 at current pace.
Hardware type: ion trap (motional-mode gates) — used by Quantinuum and IonQ. This architecture is largely insensitive to temperature. Gate design, laser control, and sympathetic cooling implementation are the primary improvement levers.
Ba+ ion trap · QCCD topology · n = [proprietary] (low thermal sensitivity) · Material floor: [proprietary] · Wall headroom: 7.9x · Scaling regime: FREE (α ≈ 0.02, QCCD log(N), no TLS ceiling)

IAM Recommendations

ERROR CORRECTION IS VIABLE on this platform right now. The next milestone is full fault-tolerant operation, projected around 2033. Focus: scaling up error-corrected logical qubits and improving the software stack.
COMPETITIVE STATUS: Top-tier platform (ranked #2 globally). The gap to the leader (Oxford Ionics EQC, A = 8.4e-5) is 9.4x — closeable through sustained Ba+ program investment or Ca+ substrate transition.
PRIMARY LEVER: Laser system precision and sympathetic cooling maintenance. Temperature reduction provides only 1.53x improvement per halving — not the dominant path for Ion A architecture. Do not divert engineering resources to cryogenic upgrades.

Quantum Dennard Transition

Motional Heating Inversion MONITORED
~2030 no cooling  ·  ~2035 w/ Helios sympathetic cooling
No solid-state substrate. T1 is a coherence validator, not a ceiling. Substrate Inversion does not apply. See architecture's own Dennard transition.
MOTIONAL HEATING INVERSION · IAM-ION-P001
CM mode (29 ± 4 q/s): ACTIVE without sympathetic cooling
Stretch mode (3 q/s): ~2030 without cooling
With sympathetic cooling: ~2033–2037 with Helios Yb+ sympathetic cooling
Escape route: Sympathetic cooling (Yb+) — in Helios 2025 · Source: arXiv:2206.11888
QUBIT COUNT SCALING LAW
FREE — alpha~0.02, QCCD log(N), no T1 ceiling
+75% qubits (H2-1 → Helios) produced −57% gate error. Scaling confirmed free.
Escape: No substrate change needed — architecture is structurally immune
IAM Core Metrics
IAM Performance Metric (A)0.000790dimensionless; lower = better
Published p₂Q7.9000e-4median; dimensionless
Operating temperature (T_op)1 mKmillikelvin
IAM Threshold Analysis
QEC threshold (surface code)1.000×10⁻³A must be below this
Fault-tolerance target1.000×10⁻⁴A must be below this
Distance to QEC0.790× (BELOW)EC viable
Distance to FT target7.903× aboveabove target
Trajectory
Improvement IAM Improvement Rate0.75 yearsIon A class default — Quantinuum observed
Years to QEC threshold0.0already crossed
Years to FT target2.2at current rate → 2029
IAM Competitive Index3 of 10
Temperature Predictions
Predicted p₂Q at 1 mK7.9000e-4IAM prediction (current operating point)
Predicted p₂Q at 5 mK2.1140e-3IAM prediction
Predicted p₂Q at 10 mK3.2292e-3IAM prediction
Architecture parameter n[proprietary]Ion Trap Class A — low thermal sensitivity
Material A-floor[proprietary]Ba+ ion trap
Wall proximity7.903×LOW concern — substantial runway remaining
Substrate Inversion statusNOT APPLICABLEIon trap — no solid-state substrate
MHI statusMONITOREDCM mode active · sympathetic cooling suppresses · see IAM-ION-P001
Framework: Informational Actualization Model (IAM) · Mahaffey (2026)
Methodology protected under Patent Applications 64/012,720 and 64/014,568.
Informational Actualization Model v2.1 · Mahaffey (2026)
All outputs are projections derived from publicly available input data.
Results are analytical predictions, not experimental measurements.
Methodology and underlying derivation are proprietary.
Patent Applications 64/012,720 and 64/014,568 · Contact through legal counsel for licensing inquiries.

Platform Analysis

Demo mode · request live access
▲ Hide custom data entry
Gate Error Rate (Engine 1)
mK for SC qubits · 295000 for ion traps at room temp
Materials Decoherence (Engine 2 — SC only)
Benchmark Translation Reverse Solver Portfolio Analysis Acquisition Analysis Methodology ⚗ Engineering Diagnostic 🎯 Threshold Proximity 🌡 Temperature Sweep 🧱 Substrate Runway
Gap Analysis — Unified Picture
DUAL BOTTLENECK
Both gate error rate and TLS materials loss are significant. Improvements are needed on both fronts simultaneously. Neither engineering nor fabrication alone will close the gap. Priority: coordinated materials + control improvement program.
2.152e-3
Gate Metric A above QEC
0.880
TLS Metric A
12%
Materials headroom
ENGINE 1 Gate Error Rate — IBM Nighthawk
2.152e-3
IAM Metric A
5 of 13
Global Rank
NOT EC
Threshold
TemperaturePredicted p₂QQEC Status
7.5 mK9.440e-4✓ QEC viable
11.2 mK1.528e-3✗
15 mK ★2.150e-3✗
22.5 mK3.480e-3✗
30 mK4.895e-3✗
45 mK7.916e-3✗
75 mK1.448e-2✗
Years to QEC: 2 · Years to FT: 8 · Halving time: 1.8 yr
Source: IBM Quantum Technology Atlas, April 2025
ENGINE 2 Materials Decoherence — IBM Nighthawk
TLS DOMINATED
600 µs
T1 Measured
0.880
TLS Metric A
12%
Materials Headroom
T1 almost entirely TLS limited
TLS loss: 4400 µs · T1 free limit: 5000 µs · f = 5 GHz
TemperaturePredicted T1Ratio vs ref
10 mK600 µs1.000×
15 mK ★600 µs1.000×
20 mK600 µs1.000×
30 mK600 µs0.999×
50 mK590 µs0.984×
75 mK553 µs0.922×
100 mK500 µs0.834×
150 mK398 µs0.664×
200 mK322 µs0.537×
300 mK228 µs0.380×
Source: IBM Quantum Technology Atlas, April 2025
Global Competitive Ranking
Trajectory to Fault Tolerance

Benchmark Translation

Enter any published benchmark — gate error rate, quantum volume, or algorithmic qubits — and get the normalized IAMPerformance score.
2.152e-3
Performance Score A
ABOVE
QEC Threshold (Surface code)
5 of 13
Global Rank
Gate error rate 0.00215 → p₂Q = 0.00215 → A = 2.152e-3

Reverse Solver

What gate error rate do you need to beat a competitor by a target year?
GAP IDENTIFIED
Trajectory Status
1.520e-4
Required Score to Lead Quantinuum Helios 98Q
Your projected: 9.960e-4
1.8 yr
Your Halving Interval
vs Quantinuum Helios 98Q: 0.9 yr
Gap: 8.440e-4 above required index. Closure year: 2032.9.
Improvement Levers Ranked
Lever Impact Note
1. Gate Calibration & ControlHIGHReduces systematic errors in two-qubit gate sequences. Lowest capital, fastest cycle.
2. Junction Process ImprovementHIGHReduces material loss at the junction interface. Medium capital, 12-18 month cycle.
3. Qubit Connectivity ArchitectureMEDIUMHigher connectivity reduces gate overhead per algorithm. Architecture redesign required.
4. Operating Point OptimizationMEDIUMTuning operating frequency reduces crosstalk. Low capital, medium cycle.

Portfolio Analysis

Score a company's full architecture mix. Is their strategy optimally hedged?
Platforms in Portfolio
Quantinuum Helios 98Q
Ion A · A=7.903e-4 · QEC NOW
Google Willow 105Q
SC CZ · A=1.501e-3 · HIGH
Oxford Ionics EQC
Ion B · A=8.4e-5 · FT CROSSED
OPTIMAL HEDGE
Portfolio combines a fast architecture for near-term advantage with an open-runway architecture for long-term scaling. This is the strongest strategic position — speed today, ceiling protection tomorrow.
Platform Architecture Score A QEC Status Runway
WillowSC Transmon — CZ gates (Google)2.002e-3above thresholdMODERATE
QuantinuumIon Trap Class A (Quantinuum, IonQ)2.002e-3above thresholdOPEN
Architecture classes: ion_a, sc_cz · Diversity score: 2

Acquisition Analysis

Does this acquisition target complement or compete with your platform?
YOUR PLATFORM
ACQUISITION TARGET
STRATEGIC HEDGE
Acquisition Target brings an open-runway architecture that complements your primary platform. This is the Google/QuEra model — speed today, scaling tomorrow. Integration complexity is higher but strategic value is significant.
YOUR PLATFORM
2.152e-3
HIGH ceiling · MODERATE runway
TARGET: ACQUISITION TARGET
8.400e-4
MEDIUM ceiling · OPEN runway

Methodology

What we measure: Gate error rate — the probability that a two-qubit gate operation produces a wrong answer. Every company in this database publishes this number. It directly determines whether a platform can perform error-corrected computation.

How we convert it: The IAM Performance Metric A = −ln(1 − p). The architecture coupling parameter n is derived from first principles — not fitted to historical data. It does not change between chip generations.

Why this is fair across architectures: The parameter n normalizes for the physical differences between SC, trapped ion, neutral atom, and topological platforms. A superconducting qubit and a trapped ion qubit are brought to the same scale through n. The comparison is architecture-independent.

Why QEC thresholds differ: SC and ion trap systems use surface codes requiring A < 0.001. Neutral atom systems with any-to-any connectivity use color codes — threshold is A < 0.005.

If you disagree with a ranking: Publish a lower gate error rate. Your position updates in 30 seconds. The methodology never changes.

Full technical derivation available under separate NDA to qualified research partners. Patent Applications 64/012,720 and 64/014,568.

⚗ IAMPerformance Engineering Diagnostic

Enter any data you have. Leave fields blank if unpublished — the framework derives everything it can from what you provide. Engineering levers let you model substrate changes, temperature scenarios, acceleration programs, or any combination before spending a dollar in the lab. Every output is a dated, falsifiable IAMPerformance prediction.
Section 1 — Platform Identity
Section 2 — Published Gate Data
Section 2b — Prior Generation
Section 3 — Engineering Scenario
RUN IAMPERFORMANCE DIAGNOSTIC  ·  DEMO MODE
Current State Analysis · 125 qubits
THEN / NOW
Google (2023) p = 2.000e-4  →  Google Willow p = 1.500e-3   ↑ 650.0% REGRESSION
A Score (IAMPerformance)
1.5011e-3
from p(2Q) = 0.1500%
Architecture · n
SC Transmon — CZ gates (Google)
n = [proprietary] · cooling exponent
Material A-floor
1.0e-3
[proprietary]
Wall proximity · concern
1.5x
STALL
QEC threshold status
1.5 yr away
A < 1e-3 · 2027
Fault-tolerance status
9.8 yr away
A < 1e-4 · 2035
Global rank
#3 of 13
vs IAMPerformance tracked platforms
Cooling sensitivity
2.73x
error reduction per temp halving
T1 relaxation
350 µs
published
GATE ERROR DECOMPOSITION · p(2Q) = p_coh + p_mat + p_ctrl
p_coh (coherence)
214 ppm
14% of total · T1/T2 limited
p_mat (substrate TLS)
167 ppm
11% of total · T1_free deficit
p_ctrl (architecture floor)
1119 ppm
75% of total · irreducible
Fixable error: 950 ppm · Irreducible floor: 550 ppm · T1_free ceiling: 500 µs
SUBSTRATE INVERSION STATUS
PAST T1* — IN TRANSITION · T1/T1* = 1.077x · T1* = 325 µs (0.65 × T1_free 500 µs)
QUANTUM DENNARD TRANSITION
Substrate Inversion APPROACHING
Google ~2028
At A = 1.5011e-3, this platform has not yet crossed the QEC threshold of 1e-3. Error correction is not yet viable. At the current improvement rate, QEC is 1.5 yr away (2027). Temperature sensitivity is high (n = [proprietary], 2.73x improvement per temperature halving). Cooling has above-average return for this architecture. A thermal lever scenario will show the specific threshold-crossing temperature.
Temperature Analysis
At 10 mK: predicted A = 2.2775e-3 · p(2Q) = 0.2275% · 0.66x improvement
TemperaturePredicted Ap(2Q)QEC?FT?
0.75 mK5.3401e-50.0053%YESYES
1.875 mK2.0142e-40.0201%YES—
3.75 mK5.4985e-40.0550%YES—
5.625 mK9.8939e-40.0989%YES—
7.5 mK ← current1.5011e-30.1500%——
10 mK ← query2.2775e-30.2275%——
11.25 mK2.7013e-30.2698%——
15 mK4.0984e-30.4090%——
At 10 mK, the predicted performance is A = 2.2775e-3 — 0.66x better than current, but neither QEC nor FT thresholds are crossed at this temperature for this architecture.
Substrate / Material Change Scenario
CURRENT STATE
SubstrateSC Transmon — CZ gates (Google)
A-floor1.0e-3
Wall proximity1.5x
Wall concernSTALL
AFTER SUBSTRATE CHANGE
SubstrateBa+ ion trap (laser motional)
A-floor[proprietary]
Wall proximity15.01x (+13.5x)
Wall concernLOW
Switching to Ba+ ion trap (laser motional) drops the material floor from 1.0e-3 to [proprietary] — a 10x improvement. The gate error rate does not change — the current published A score is unchanged. What changes is the ceiling above the platform. Wall proximity goes from 1.5x to 15.01x, and the concern level shifts from STALL to LOW. The new material floor is below the FT target — meaning fault-tolerant operation is physically accessible on this substrate. Quantinuum H-series / Helios class.
Improvement Rate Scenario
CURRENT PACE
Halving rate2.5 yr
QEC crossing2027
FT crossing2035
ACCELERATED PACE
Halving rate1.35 yr
QEC crossing2026
FT crossing2030
Accelerating from a 2.5-year halving rate to 1.35 years pulls the QEC crossing 0.7 yr sooner (to 2026). The FT target is reached 4.5 yr sooner (to 2030). The halving rate is the one quantity in the IAMPerformance framework calibrated from observed engineering pace, not first principles.
Improvement Trajectory
YearA ScoreMilestone
20251.5011e-3
20261.1376e-3
20271.0000e-3← Material floor reached
20281.0000e-3
20291.0000e-3
20301.0000e-3
20311.0000e-3
2032–20401.0000e-3substrate change required
Material floor reached: 2027 — further improvement requires substrate change.
Year-by-year projection at the 2.5-year halving rate. Milestones are QEC threshold crossing, FT target crossing, and material floor reached. Every milestone year is a specific falsifiable prediction — if the platform publishes data for that year, the prediction can be checked. The material floor year is the hard physical ceiling: once reached, engineering improvements stop and a substrate change is required to continue.
Auto-Generated Predictions
These predictions are derived automatically from the inputs and the IAMPerformance framework. Each is dated, numbered, and specific — copy them directly into the next issue as falsifiable predictions. When the platform publishes new data, the record shows whether the prediction held.
IAM-DIAG-P001 2025-01-01 PENDING
Google Willow has reached the material design ceiling on its current substrate. A < 1.0e-03 is not achievable without a substrate change. Current A = 1.501e-03, floor = 1.0e-03, wall proximity = 1.50x.
Basis: Wall status: STALL. A-floor for sc_cz class: [proprietary].
IAM-DIAG-P002 2025-01-01 PENDING
Google Willow will cross the QEC threshold (A < 1e-03) around 2026 at the current improvement pace (2.5-year halving rate).
Basis: Current A = 1.501e-03. QEC threshold = 1e-03. Years to QEC at current pace: 1.5.
IAM-DIAG-P003 2025-01-01 PENDING
Google Willow will reach the fault-tolerance target (A < 1e-4) around 2035 at the current pace.
Basis: Current A = 1.501e-03. Years to FT: 9.8. Halving rate: 2.5 yr.
IAM-DIAG-P004 2025-01-01 PENDING
Google Willow shows a gate error regression from Google (2.000e-04 → 1.500e-03). This is consistent with the platform operating past its material ceiling — more connectivity pushed TLS coupling up, not down.
Basis: Prior p(2Q) = 2.000e-04. Current p(2Q) = 1.500e-03. Regression = 650.0% worse.
IAMPerformance read: The combined scenario shows what is physically achievable if this platform pulls every available lever simultaneously. No production team currently does this — which means there is unrealized upside in the existing architecture if the engineering investment is made.

🎯 Error Correction Threshold Proximity

Every active platform ranked by distance to its architecture-specific QEC threshold and fault-tolerance target. The left bar shows current A score. Wall concern tells you whether the platform can get there on its current substrate.
PLATFORM A SCORE TO QEC TO FT WALL ARCHITECTURE
Oxford Ionics EQC (2025)8.400e-05CROSSEDCROSSEDMEDIUMIon Trap Class B (Oxford Ionics)
Quantinuum Helios 98Q (2025)7.903e-04CROSSED2.7 yrLOWIon Trap Class A (Quantinuum, IonQ)
Google Willow 105Q (2024)1.501e-030.9 yr5.9 yrSTALLSC Transmon — CZ gates (Google)
Quantinuum H2 56Q (2024)2.002e-030.9 yr3.9 yrLOWIon Trap Class A (Quantinuum, IonQ)
IBM Nighthawk 120Q (2026)2.152e-032.0 yr8.0 yrHIGHSC Transmon — ECR gates (IBM, Rigetti)
IBM Eagle 127Q (2022)2.974e-032.8 yr8.8 yrMEDIUMSC Transmon — ECR gates (IBM, Rigetti)
QuEra Gemini 3000Q (2025)3.004e-03CROSSED20.1 yrSTALLNeutral Atom / Rydberg (QuEra)
IonQ Forte 36Q (2023)4.309e-031.9 yr4.9 yrLOWIon Trap Class A (Quantinuum, IonQ)
QuEra Aquila 256Q (2023)5.012e-030.0 yr23.2 yrSTALLNeutral Atom / Rydberg (QuEra)
Google Sycamore 53Q (2019)6.219e-034.0 yr8.9 yrLOWSC Transmon — CZ gates (Google)
Rigetti Ankaa-3 84Q (2024)7.025e-035.1 yr11.0 yrLOWSC Transmon — ECR gates (IBM, Rigetti)
IBM Heron R2 156Q (2024)7.599e-035.3 yr11.2 yrLOWSC Transmon — ECR gates (IBM, Rigetti)
QuEra Gemini 260Q (2025)8.032e-032.8 yr25.9 yrHIGHNeutral Atom / Rydberg (QuEra)

🌡 Temperature Sweep — A(T) Comparison

How does performance change as temperature drops? The curve shows predicted A score at every temperature. Threshold crossing points are marked automatically. The architecture parameter n governs the slope.
PLATFORM A
PLATFORM B
IBM Nighthawk 120Q
n = [proprietary] · high cooling sensitivity
QEC crossed at 7.94 mK
FT crossed at 1.15 mK
Google Willow
n = [proprietary] · high cooling sensitivity
QEC not crossed in range
FT not crossed in range
IBM Nighthawk 120Q has moderate temperature sensitivity (n = [proprietary]). The QEC threshold is crossed at 7.94 mK for IBM Nighthawk 120Q. That is a specific falsifiable prediction: cool this hardware to that temperature and error correction becomes viable without a new processor generation.

🧱 Substrate Runway — How Much Headroom Remains?

Every platform positioned relative to its material A-floor. The gap is the remaining engineering runway. Material floors are proprietary — available to qualified evaluators under NDA. Red = STALL · Amber = HIGH · Green = LOW
PLATFORM SUBSTRATE CURRENT A A-FLOOR WALL RATIO CONCERN HEADROOM
QuEra Gemini 3000Q (2025)Rb neutral atom3.004e-3[proprietary]0.60xSTALLAT FLOOR
QuEra Aquila 256Q (2023)Rb neutral atom5.012e-3[proprietary]1.00xSTALLAT FLOOR
Google Willow 105Q (2024)Al/AlOx + PR eng1.501e-3[proprietary]1.50xSTALL0.50x above
QuEra Gemini 260Q (2025)Rb neutral atom8.032e-3[proprietary]1.61xHIGH0.61x above
IBM Nighthawk 120Q (2026)Nb+AlOx2.152e-3[proprietary]2.15xHIGH1.15x above
Oxford Ionics EQC (2025)Ca+ EQC8.400e-5[proprietary]2.80xMEDIUM1.80x above
IBM Eagle 127Q (2022)Nb+AlOx2.974e-3[proprietary]2.97xMEDIUM1.97x above
Google Sycamore 53Q (2019)Al/AlOx + PR eng6.219e-3[proprietary]6.22xLOW5.22x above
Rigetti Ankaa-3 84Q (2024)Nb+AlOx7.025e-3[proprietary]7.02xLOW6.02x above
IBM Heron R2 156Q (2024)Nb+AlOx7.599e-3[proprietary]7.60xLOW6.60x above
Quantinuum Helios 98Q (2025)Ba+ ion trap7.903e-4[proprietary]7.90xLOW6.90x above
Quantinuum H2 56Q (2024)Ba+ ion trap2.002e-3[proprietary]20.02xLOW19.02x above
IonQ Forte 36Q (2023)Ba+ ion trap4.309e-3[proprietary]43.09xLOW42.09x above
Informational Actualization Model v2.1 · Mahaffey (2026)
Methodology protected under Patent Applications 64/012,720 and 64/014,568
All inputs from publicly available published sources.