Compare D-Wave’s results to the following peers, this quarter:
IonQ reported $80.1M in revenue, up 287% year over year and about 26x D-Wave's quarterly figure
Rigetti grew 185% year over year to $5.4M
Quantinuum was $8m, up 280% y/o/y
D-Wave: 0% growth and $3.1m revenue.
About D-Wave's pathetic Q2: If we believe that the AT&T deal and others are bringing in meaningful sales, yet revenue is zero... that means that current customers are abandoning the technology.
Coherence Report is the only quantum industry publication on the record for predicting the collapse of D-Wave’s commercial narrative. Reading through the results, it’s clear that:
Additionally, D-Wave has not yet revealed any information that disputes whether the FAU deal is a fraud (or at best, a backroom deal that will never come to fruition).
For detailed analysis on the results:
About D-Wave's pathetic Q2: If we believe that the AT&T deal and others are bringing in meaningful sales, yet revenue is zero... that means that current customers are abandoning the technology.
Additionally, D-Wave has not yet revealed any information that disputes whether the FAU deal is a fraud (or at best, a backroom deal that will never come to fruition).
For detailed analysis on the results:
It's finally here. Companies love to lean on press releases (as opposed to leaders like IonQ who quietly win deals that D-Wave throws parades for). But tomorrow, it's finally time to see what really is happening.
Alan Baratz repeats the same talking points every time, so I thought it would be fun to make it into a drinking game.
Here are my suggestions, but I'm open to your feedback and suggestions!
Remember - IonQ cited ZERO past deals on their earnings call today, and they closing deals constantly. What does it say about D-Wave that they do?
And IonQ barely mentioned how they are showing 80% organic growth (y/o/y). D-Wave has slightly negative organic growth.
There is a lot of nuance in the IonQ and SkyWater deal. The headlines of how this will solve quantum computing fabrication for them is not entirely true...
To be honest, we were hoping this would close a month from now, because we are in the process of publishing a series of primers on quantum fabrication (free of charge) for the public, and doing a deeper investigation into how SkyWater relates to the broader industry.
For now, we are just presenting our initial thoughts here:
https://coherence.report/editorial/?qid=28
Would love to hear your analysis on this. I think quantum fabrication is an untapped topic on this sub.
D-Wave recently announced that their work was written up in Nature, in regards to their Japan Tobacco molecule generation project. This is something I am uniquely qualified to speak on, since I was involved in their quantum AI strategy, and I know this project very well.
After a review of the paper, we find that D-Wave's annealer did indeed have a positive effect on two metrics: Validity and Drug-Likeness.
Unfortunately, that outcome does *not* mean that it did anything useful.
How can this be true? Because in order for a technology to be useful, not only must it produce a positive outcome, but it must also be competitive to other techniques out there. D-Wave has a history of comparing itself against "nothing"; instead of proving that it is competitive in the market.
Additionally, the metrics they measured the outcome were vague and unconstructive.
For a non-technical, easy read of this paper: https://coherence.report/d-waves-quantum-ai-published-read-between-the-lines-2/
It also explains why D-Wave is falling behind their peers in commercialization.
The Microsoft Marjorana debate is fascinating.
Outside physicists disputed the results the same day Microsoft announced them. The company's 2029 target depends on a foundational claim that independent researchers say remains unverified after more than a year of asking for the data.
This could be huge for quantum computing, or it could be absolutely nothing.
What are your thoughts?
Read our initial take here: https://coherence.report/editorial/?qid=17
The market is treating the SkyWater acquisition as a done deal. But there is a problem.
IonQ agreed to buy SkyWater on January 25, 2026, but the FTC hit both companies with a Second Request on April 24, which is the agency's way of saying it wants a much closer look before approving.
The timing of this is interesting, considering that the administration just released $1.4b in May to promote competition for fabrication.
Three things I don't see discussed enough:
I'm going to be writing a much longer investigative piece on this soon.
Josh Speyer here - former D-Wave insider, and publisher of reports on the quantum computing industry.
Just want to remind everyone that we've been predicting the downfall of QBTS for months now. It's nothing mysterious here: the company has no marketable technology, zero organic revenue growth, no commercial traction, and has lied about its quantum ai prospects.
While we can blame the macro environment (which is obviously the catalyst here), the fact is that this company has NOTHING of value except a thesis for investors. I'll be presenting videos and articles on this channel in the next few weeks. For example, next week I'll be posting a detailed technical breakdown explain how the D-Wave annealer does almost nothing of practical value for enterprises. That's the reason why their revenue is dwindling.
Lots going on in qual, but besides the occasional "copilot" there's really nothing for quantitative research.
Calibrating a small quantum device with a handful of qubits is a manageable engineering task - which is where we have been up until recently. Calibrating a large QPU is fundamentally different. As qubit counts grow, the sources of error multiply, components interact with each other, and the number of interdependent parameters simultaneously grows faster than the hardware itself.
The other constant across every quantum architecture is that calibration is never finished. Quantum hardware drifts continuously with temperature changes, electromagnetic interference, and physical wear, which means a processor that was performing well this morning may need adjustment by the afternoon. The process is always iterative: characterize the system, adjust the parameters, validate the result, and repeat. The faster and more reliably a team can run that loop, the more time the QPU actually spends doing useful computation (rather than sitting offline being tuned).
The specific methods involved depend heavily on the qubit type, and each architecture has its own distinct challenges, which are covered in the sections below. But across all of them, certain things remain consistent. Every architecture requires an initialization process that maps the behavior of the hardware from scratch. Every architecture requires ongoing drift correction to keep performance from degrading between runs. And every architecture faces the same fundamental tension: the more qubits you add, the more calibration work is required, and the harder it becomes to do that work efficiently.
In this article, we discuss:
https://coherence.report/calibration-and-the-future-of-quantum/
We’ve all seen the headlines about the Ising launch. We also all saw the hype: this is launch of Quantum AI.
Except, as is the case with most quantum computing news, that would mindless dribble written by those with an agenda.
The Ising framework is indeed exciting. But it is not quantum AI… because it does not enable quantum computers to run AI models, nor does it accelerate AI training. What they’ve essentially created is similar to Microsoft Copilot - a platform (enabled with AI) that helps engineers and operators maintain a QPU. In plain terms: this is not “quantum computers doing AI.” It’s “AI helping operate quantum computers.”
The fact that Alan Baratz, CEO of D-Wave, used this opportunity to talk about D-Wave’s quantum AI “abilities” just shows that he did not actually read the press release. The way this was reported in the media is the reason why we need more publishers with true technical knowledge to produce content for investors and enthusiasts.
Now that we got that out of the way, Ising is in fact really interesting, and I’ve written a deep-dive here.
https://coherence.report/ising-is-an-ai-copilot-not-quantum-ai/
Just a note here - we're going to start posting news for investors in the quantum computing space. Would love to have others contribute as well!
D-Wave is celebrating $1.57 million in NSF funding tied to its Quantum Circuits subsidiary, but that Yale partnership predates the acquisition by more than a year.
WHAT HAPPENED
D-Wave announced on June 30 that it is receiving $1.5f rom a National Science Foundation program supporting quantum research. The funding is tied to ERASE, a project led by Yale physicist Steven Girvin that aims to build more reliable quantum computers. The award flows through D-Wave's New Haven subsidiary, Quantum Circuits, LLC, formerly known as QCI, which D-Wave acquired recently. Under the arrangement, ERASE researchers gain access to QCI's superconducting dual-rail gate-model hardware. Yale had separately announced on June 24 that ERASE's second phase received a total of $4 million in NSF funding, of which D-Wave's $1.57 million is one portion.
WHY IT MATTERS
Quantum computing companies are still mostly pre-revenue businesses leaning on government grants, research partnerships, and investor enthusiasm to justify their valuations. In that environment, how a company frames its wins matters almost as much as the wins themselves, because headlines often substitute for hard sales numbers when investors are deciding whether to believe the story.
What's notable here is the gap between the announcement and the timeline. QCI was already the designated hardware partner for ERASE's first NSF funding round back in December 2024, more than a year before D-Wave owned the company. In reality, D-Wave acquired a company that already had this Yale relationship locked in.
The grant is not sales revenue. It funds research access to QCI's hardware rather than paying for a delivered product or service, and at $1.57 million it amounts to less than 3% of what D-Wave spends running its business in a single quarter. With $588.4 million in cash on hand, the company doesn't need this money to survive. It needs the story.
The press release also surfaces just $1.57 million of a $4 million grant, leaving readers without the full picture of how the funding, and the credit, is actually distributed among ERASE's partners.
WHAT THE NUMBERS SHOW
| NSF grant credited to D-Wave (announced June 30) | $1.57 million |
|---|---|
| Full NSF grant to ERASE Phase 2 (per Yale, June 24) | $4.0 million |
| D-Wave's share of full ERASE Phase 2 grant | ~39% |
| Remaining ERASE Phase 2 funding (other partners) | ~$2.4 million |
| D-Wave Q1 2026 GAAP operating expenses | $56.5 million |
| D-Wave Q1 2026 revenue | $2.9 million |
| D-Wave Q1 2026 net loss | $18.4 million |
| D-Wave cash and securities (as of 3/31/26) | $588.4 million |
| Grant as share of one quarter's opex | ~2.8% |
WHAT WE'RE WATCHING
Annealing-business relevance. D-Wave's legacy annealing computer line had zero involvement in this grant or the Yale relationship. Watch if there are any future announcements that involve their keystone annealing product.
Repeat framing pattern. Watch the next two or three D-Wave press releases for similar treatment, presenting pre-acquisition QCI achievements as new D-Wave wins. One instance is a footnote; three would be a pattern worth calling out explicitly.
The other $2.4 million. Confirm with NSF or Yale how the remaining ERASE Phase 2 funding is allocated among partners like Princeton, the University of Maryland, and Southern Connecticut State. That breakdown would show how central D-Wave's actual contribution is versus how central the press release makes it sound.
Gate-model commercial traction. Check within six months whether the QCI gate-model hardware has converted into any paid commercial contracts or system sales, as opposed to additional research-access grants. That's the real test of whether this technology has business value beyond academic partnerships.
BOTTOM LINE
This is a QCI legacy deal being sold to the market as a D-Wave achievement, and the distinction matters more than the dollar figure. D-Wave spent $56.5 million last quarter and lost $18.4 million while generating $2.9 million in revenue, so a $1.57 million research grant changes nothing about the underlying business. What it does change is the narrative, since a partnership QCI built more than a year before D-Wave owned it gets repackaged as fresh momentum the day after the bigger $4 million figure became public. It's also important to remember that this is not revenue, but a research agreement, and indicates nothing about the company's ability to commercialize its technology in the future.
The sources we used:
D-Wave to Receive $1.5 Million Grant Through NSF Project — BusinessWire, June 30, 2026
A new vision for quantum computing takes a big step forward, with new grant — Yale News, June 25, 2026
With NSF grant, Yale and industry team up to harness quantum's potential — Yale News, December 19, 2024
D-Wave Quantum Inc. Form 10-Q, Q1 2026 — SEC EDGAR
D-Wave Reports First Quarter 2026 Results — BusinessWire, May 12, 2026
D-Wave Announces Agreement to Acquire Quantum Circuits Inc. — SEC 8-K, January 7, 2026
D-Wave Completes Acquisition of Quantum Circuits Inc. — SEC 8-K, January 20, 2026
Recently, it was misreported that Nvidia had launched a Quantum AI toolkit (Ising). That is not at all true... Something that the media got quite confused about.
What they did announce was still exciting - a set of tools to push forward calibration and decoding in quantum computing. What does this mean? They are tools that use AI to help manage and operate a quantum computer, and could conceivably open up quantum computing for scalable, real world applications.
But it has nothing to do with Quantum AI.