IonQ Stock Price: RGTI, QBTS, and the Quantum Computing Face-Off

The Quantum Computing Hype Train: Still Waiting for Passengers?

Quantum computing: the next big thing, or the next big bubble? That's the question swirling around companies like IonQ (IONQ), Rigetti Computing (RGTI), and D-Wave Quantum (QBTS). All three are publicly traded, and all three are burning cash. The key question is, who's actually building something of lasting value?

Morgan Stanley's Joseph Moore recently hiked his price target for IonQ from $32 to $58, citing expectations of a solid revenue beat and a "bullish outlook." He also reiterated his "Hold" rating. That’s analyst-speak for “I see potential, but I'm not convinced yet.” Moore's reasoning hinges on recent technology development agreements signed by the Trump administration (yes, that’s still relevant, apparently) with the UK, Korea, and Japan, all highlighting quantum technology. The logic is that IonQ, with a presence in these regions, stands to benefit. But is that benefit already baked into the stock price? IONQ Stock Wins a Price Target Hike from Top Analyst Ahead of Q3 Results

IonQ boasts impressive tech, specifically its low error rates in the QC business (99.99% fidelity on two-qubit gates). They already have customers, including Airbus, Hyundai, and the U.S. Air Force. As of late 2025, the company has Forte, with 36 physical qubits. IonQ Tempo has 64 algorithmic qubits. Revenue expectations for 2025 are around $91 million, and the company has a substantial war chest of ~$546.8 million in accessible liquidity. The company uses trapped-ion tech, which is more economical than superconducting methods because it operates at room temperature.

However, there's a trade-off. IonQ's laser-steering approach, while yielding high fidelity, is slower than superconducting circuits. A single two-qubit laser gate takes microseconds, whereas superconducting circuits finish the same operation in nanoseconds (~10-20). This speed bottleneck becomes critical when running complex, error-corrected algorithms requiring millions of gates. Competitors using superconducting platforms are closing the fidelity gap faster than IonQ is closing the speed gap.

Rigetti Computing, the only publicly traded, full-stack, made-in-America superconducting quantum shop, is taking a different approach. They have a 36-qubit “Cepheus-1” with 99.5% two-qubit fidelity, a 100-qubit system due this year (2025), and a 336-qubit system slated for 2026. They posted $2 million in revenue in Q2 of 2025, but also $40 million in losses. Cash (plus highly liquid assets) totaled $427.4 million in Q2, enough to fund operations for years. The big question mark is whether Rigetti can break even before the money runs out, or whether they can continue to tap the market for more funding.

D-Wave Quantum takes yet another path, focusing on quantum annealing. This approach solves optimization problems but cannot break codes or run general-purpose quantum programs. D-Wave's management has been highly successful in its PR efforts, leading to a significant stock surge (up 3,396% in the past year as of late 2025). They have used this momentum to raise massive amounts of cash ($819 million in Q2). The bear case is that the optimization market is limited, and once IonQ or Rigetti perfect error-corrected chips, D-Wave's special edge disappears.

Ultimately, all three stocks are speculative. IONQ vs RGTI vs QBTS: Which Quantum Computing Stock Should You Buy in November 2025? IonQ currently owns the highest-value slice of the early quantum market, and that slice is growing. Rigetti is a play on "quantum foundry" scarcity, betting that superconducting tech will ultimately prevail. D-Wave is a bet on the continued demand for specialized optimization solutions. But is there a true use case for these stocks?

The Quantum Promise: Still Just a Theoretical Bet

Quantum computing remains a long-term, high-risk bet. The technology is still in its infancy, and it's unclear which approach (trapped-ion, superconducting, or annealing) will ultimately win out. These companies are burning cash, and profitability is still years away. Investors need to approach these stocks with extreme caution and a clear understanding of the risks involved. And this is the part of the report that I find genuinely puzzling: the disconnect between the hype and the actual, demonstrable applications. Are we investing in a technology, or just a concept?