管理層發言
Good day, and thank you for standing by. Welcome to the Rigetti Computing Second Quarter 2025 Financial Results Conference Call. Please be advised that today's conference is being recorded. I would now like to hand the conference over to your speaker today, Dr. Subodh Kulkarni, Chief Executive Officer. Please go ahead.
Good afternoon, and thank you for participating in Rigetti's earnings conference call covering the second quarter ended June 30, 2025. Joining me today is Jeff Bertelsen, our CFO, who will review our results in some detail following my overview. Our CTO, David Rivas, is also here to participate in the Q&A session. We will be pleased to answer your questions at the conclusion of our remarks. We would like to point out that this call and Rigetti's second quarter ended June 30, 2025, press release contain forward-looking statements regarding current expectations, objectives and underlying assumptions regarding our outlook and future operating results. These forward-looking statements are subject to a number of risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results to differ materially from those described and are discussed in more detail in our Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2024, our Form 10-Q for the 3 and 6 months ended June 30, 2025, and other documents filed by the company from time to time with the securities and exchange commission.
These filings identify and address important risks and uncertainties that could cause actual events and results to differ materially from those contained in the forward-looking statements. We urge you to review these discussions of risk factors. Today, I'm pleased to report that we continue to achieve our ambitious road map goals and maintained our momentum on the technology front, most recently by demonstrating the industry's largest multi-chip quantum computer with impressive performance. Our multi-chip quantum computer, Cepheus-1-36Q, the industry's largest multichip quantum computer, is released for general availability and deployed on the Rigetti Quantum Cloud Services platform, QCS, and will be available on Microsoft Azure thereafter. Just 6 months after our record performance with Ankaa-3, we have once again halved our error rates. With a median 2-qubit gate fidelity of 99.5%, Cepheus-1-36Q has achieved a 2x reduction in 2 qubit gate error rate from our previous Ankaa-3 system.
Cepheus-1-36Q is the first multichip quantum computer in the industry to achieve this level of performance. With 4 chips, Cepheus-1-36Q contains the largest number of chiplets in a quantum computer and further validates our approach to scaling Rigetti's quantum computers. It's our view that superconducting qubits are the leading modality for quantum computers due to their ability to scale and their ability to achieve gate speeds more than 1,000 times faster than other modalities like ion traps and pure atoms. Our superconducting qubits leverage technologies like chiplets that have been maturing in the semiconductor industry for decades. Use of these well-established methods enables Rigetti to scale its quantum computers to higher levels of performance and qubit counts. This legacy of technological advancement continues with the Cepheus-1 architecture and includes the following features that contribute to improved performance.
Transitioning from a monolithic chip to chiplets enables greater control over chip uniformity, which in turn improves performance. Leveraging chiplets also reduces manufacturing complexity and improves fabrication yield. Optimized 2 qubit gates enable faster gate times while reducing coherent errors, which improves fidelity and is important for executing quantum error correction techniques. These improvements enable a 2x reduction in error rates. Advances in multilayer chip and tunable coupler design also enable higher performance. Our industry-leading proprietary chiplet approach to scaling makes us confident that we will hit our end-of-year technology goals. We believe quadrupling our chiplet count and significantly decreasing error rates is a clear path towards quantum advantage and fault tolerance. We intend to continue our momentum and expect to release a 100-plus qubit chiplet-based system at 99.5% median 2-qubit gate fidelity before the end of 2025.
While we are pleased with our sequential growth in quarterly revenues, we believe achievement of our technology milestones remains a key metric to achieving our long-term success. On the financing front, I'm pleased to report that Rigetti has significantly strengthened its balance sheet. During the second quarter of 2025, Rigetti completed the sale of $350 million gross proceeds of its common stock pursuant to our previously disclosed at-the-market equity offering program. We are well positioned to support commercial scale-up of our superconducting gate-based quantum computers. Thank you. Jeff will now make a few remarks regarding our recent financial performance.
Thanks, Subodh. Revenues in the second quarter of 2025 were $1.8 million compared to $3.1 million in the second quarter of 2024. On a year-over-year basis, our revenue for the quarter was impacted by the expiration of the National Quantum initiative and its pending reauthorization in the U.S. Congress. Renewal of the U.S. National Quantum initiative, sales to U.S. and foreign governments, and Novera are all important to future sales. Gross margins in the second quarter of 2025 came in at 31% compared to 64% in the second quarter of 2024. The lower gross margins on a year-over-year basis were impacted by revenue mix and variability in the pricing in terms of our development contracts, including our contracts with the U.K.'s NQCC for Quantum Systems, which have lower gross margins than most of our other revenue. On the expense side, total OpEx in the second quarter of 2025 was $20.4 million compared to $18.1 million in the same period of the prior year.
The increase in total OpEx was due to annual salary increases, new hires, and higher consulting costs, mainly in research and development. Higher costs for our annual shareholder meeting due to the increase in the number of beneficial owners of our stock also contributed to the increase. Stock compensation expense for the second quarter of 2025 was $3.6 million compared to $3.3 million for the second quarter of 2024. Our operating loss for the second quarter of 2025 came in at $19.9 million compared to $16.1 million in the prior year period. We recorded a $39.7 million net loss for the second quarter of 2025 compared to a net loss of $12.4 million for the second quarter of 2024. Our net loss for the second quarter of 2025 includes noncash charges for the change in the fair value of our derivative warrant and earn-out liabilities, which had a $22.8 million unfavorable impact on our net loss for the quarter.
Derivative warrant and earn-out liabilities had a $3.4 million favorable impact on our net loss for the second quarter of 2024. As of June 30, 2025, we had approximately $571.6 million of cash, cash equivalents, and available-for-sale investments and no debt. Thank you. We would now be happy to answer your questions.
分析師問答
Our first question comes from Troy Jensen with Cantor Fitzgerald.
First off, congrats on all the great traction here.
Thanks, Troy.
Subodh for you, maybe to start off with, just use of proceeds, you've got a ton of money on the balance sheet now. I mean, is the intention to accelerate R&D, do a little M&A or just kind of a cushion on the balance sheet to fund operating losses?
Our focus, Troy, continues to be on R&D development. We will obviously look at every opportunity to accelerate our timeline. Right now, we believe we are funding R&D adequately to hit the milestones that we have laid out. As you saw, we demonstrated a 4x9 qubit multichip system. We are deploying it as we speak. Our plan for the end of the year is to deliver a multichip 100-plus qubit system with 99.5% 2-qubit gate fidelity. And from there on to continue to increase the fidelity as well as qubit count using the chiplet approach. Every opportunity we get to accelerate that timeline, we continue to look at it and we will do so. At this point, we believe we are still about 3 to 4 years away from getting to the 1,000-plus qubit, 99.9% fidelity with error correction and gate speeds of less than 50 nanoseconds, which is when we achieve quantum advantage. If we can accelerate that timeline using our strengthened balance sheet, as you correctly pointed out, we will obviously look at that. But I believe right now, we are still looking at roughly about 4 years to get to that quantum advantage point. I hope that answers your question.
Yes, it does very much so. But just with respect to OpEx, it would assume just kind of sequential growth going forward, but no big stepping, no big leaps in spending.
Yes, Troy, I think that's a good summary for right now anyway. So as Subodh said, we're adequately funded in R&D, but we'll look for opportunities. But right now, I don't think we anticipate any significant uplift.
Could you provide us with an update on Quanta, what they are doing, and what we can't see to satisfy their commitment regarding your further investment in Rigetti?
Sure. As we have mentioned previously, Quanta is an important partner for us in terms of hardware outside of the QPU area. We remain focused on the QPU side while Quanta is currently investing in the non-QPU aspects of the hardware stack, primarily in control systems. Their current aim is to enhance their capabilities in control systems. Our objective is to get them integrated with control systems that function alongside our QPUs in the coming quarters. Once they become proficient in quantum computing and control systems, it will allow us to concentrate more on the QPU aspect. They continue to be a valuable and strategic partner for us, and the collaboration is progressing well. We are enthusiastic about co-developing the quantum systems with them. I hope that addresses your question.
Our next question comes from David Williams with The Benchmark Company.
Congrats on meeting the targets on the Cepheus chip. That's impressive. But I guess maybe, Subodh, last time we spoke, you had confidence that you could get to this 99.5%. But you said that you had a little bit of work to do and you clearly hit that here. I guess how confident are you in being able to parlay that on the 100-qubit chip? And are there any major, I guess, steps or challenges ahead of you in order to get that 100 qubit at the same fidelity?
Thanks, David, for the question. Certainly, getting to 4 chiplets with 9 qubits to the 36 qubit level was a significant accomplishment this last quarter and we are really happy to get that. Regarding your question about 100-plus qubit, we are confident we'll get there with 99.5% 2-qubit gate fidelity before the end of this year. The beauty of the chiplet approach is once the fundamental architecture is defined and the performance is there, scaling up becomes a lot easier by definition. And that's the whole reason for the chiplet approach. You intrinsically are using the same 9-qubit chip multiple times. And that gets better uniformity on your wafers, you get better yields. It really allows us to get a perfect 9-qubit chip and then replicate it multiple times, which is why the semiconductor industry uses chiplets as a CMOS technology right now for all your advanced applications. So all the reasons that help semiconductor CMOS industry with chiplets are the same reasons why we chose the chiplet approach.
Now that we have proven that it works at this high fidelity, our confidence is fairly high that we will get to 100-plus qubit and beyond, frankly. We really need to get to 1,000 qubit and multi-thousand qubits here soon to get to that quantum advantage point and then fault-tolerant quantum computing beyond that. So our confidence is fairly high. But obviously, this is still technology development and challenges will always be there. So we are not taking it for granted by any means, and we'll continue to work hard to get it there. Hopefully, that answers your question.
No, it absolutely does. And I guess the follow-up to that would be, do you think that your road map can be accelerated beyond? I know you've talked about 3 to 4 years. But it seems like you're making just such great progress on the scalability side that you might be able to accelerate that even though maybe the error correction is lacking. Do you think you'll hit one of your targets maybe on the qubit side before you get to the others that you talked about this 3 to 4 years out?
We will certainly try to accelerate our timeline from 4 years to achieving Quantum Advantage. The chiplet technology definitely aids us in reaching that goal. However, there are other crucial metrics to consider. We need to achieve at least 1,000 qubits for Quantum Advantage, attain a minimum of 99.9% fidelity in 2 qubit gates, implement error correction, and improve gate speeds to below 50 nanoseconds. Additionally, there are challenges associated with the dilution refrigerator, such as the density of cables and components. Currently, we primarily use coax cables, but as we approach 1,000 qubits, we will need to explore alternatives like flex cable technology. It's essential to note that just because chiplets have been demonstrated, it doesn't mean the path is simple. We are committed to accelerating our timeline but must address several factors, which is why we estimate around 4 years.
We believe that this is the fastest timeline anyone in the quantum computing field can realistically achieve Quantum Advantage. To reach this, we need at least 1,000 qubits, 99.9% fidelity in 2 qubit gates, gate speeds faster than 50 nanoseconds, and functional error correction. None of us in gate-based quantum computing have achieved these benchmarks yet, which supports the 4-year timeline. While some companies may suggest they will reach Quantum Advantage soon, we believe significant time is required to meet those four criteria. Specifically, certain modalities like trapped ions and pure atoms face fundamental scientific challenges in improving their gate speeds, currently operating in the range of hundreds of microseconds. They require major scientific advancements to achieve the necessary gate speeds for practical Quantum Advantage. We will keep looking for ways to accelerate our timeline, but a realistic expectation for Quantum Advantage is roughly 4 years, considering those four requirements I mentioned. I hope that addresses your question.
Yes. And you've certainly done a good job hitting your milestones so far. So we'll certainly be looking for that acceleration. I appreciate it.
Our next question comes from Krish Sankar with TD.
This is Steven calling on behalf of Krish. Subodh, if I could start first, I wanted to explore the M&A-related question again. I guess, just with the stronger balance sheet that you guys have now. And I guess I want to get your view on kind of current valuations on quantum assets currently? And is M&A an important part of your growth story over the next year or 2? And specifically, just asking related to like more adjacent technologies, whether it's semi-manufacturing, advanced packaging or software-related capabilities.
Thanks, Steven. We will continue to look at opportunities where M&A could help us with our timeline. Our view is that we are very much in technology development right now. The timeline that we have laid out, the 4 years to Quantum Advantage, is primarily within our control right now. If we find opportunities in M&A where we can accelerate our timeline, we will certainly look at that. As of today, we don't see anything out there that can help us. We are in the leadership camp right now when it comes to overall quantum computing performance. There's probably a couple of tech giants that have one or two critical metrics that are ahead of us. But besides that, I mean, frankly, and those tech giants are out of our league to consider M&A. Besides those kinds of opportunities, we really don't see anyone out there who is anywhere close to where we are. So we are quite a bit ahead of everyone when it comes to technology right now, except for a couple of tech giants in a couple of key metrics. So really, we don't see any tactical opportunity to use M&A to help us with our timeline acceleration. But we'll continue to look at that. And if there are opportunities out there, we'll certainly not be shy to exercise those opportunities.
My second question is related to gate speeds. You kind of mentioned that first that getting below 50 nanoseconds is important for ultimately reaching quantum advantage for the industry. I think previously, you mentioned you guys are around 70 nanoseconds currently. And just kind of curious if you can provide some thoughts on the road map for getting to sub-50 nanoseconds. And also, what are the implications in terms of overall quantum system performance? Like is it a benefit or a boost to coherence times, fidelity rates or like in terms of the overall productivity and performance of the system? If you could help provide some color, that would be helpful.
Good question, Steven. The four key factors we need to achieve quantum advantage are having at least 1,000 qubits, a minimum qubit gate fidelity of 99.9%, effective error correction, and gate speeds faster than 50 nanoseconds. Among these, we are most confident about achieving faster gate speeds relatively soon. Currently, with Ankaa-3, we are at around 70 nanoseconds, and we are deploying Cepheus-1, which is slightly faster, expected to be in the 50 to 60 nanoseconds range. We believe reaching 50 nanoseconds or less should be attainable without difficulty, as gate speed is crucial for building a quantum computer. Speed significantly impacts the time required to perform and complete any operations. We maintain that a quantum computer will need to operate within existing data centers alongside CPUs and GPUs as part of a hybrid system, meaning it has to interface with existing networks. Consequently, a quantum computer's design must align with CPU and GPU clock speeds, necessitating gate speeds under 50 nanoseconds.
While some might argue that even this benchmark feels relatively slow compared to CPUs and GPUs, it provides a competitive edge. However, other technologies like trapped ions or pure atoms operate at hundreds of microseconds, making them 1,000 to 10,000 times slower than superconducting quantum computers, and this disparity complicates the integration of quantum computers in current data centers and networks. Thus, discussions around hybrid systems in existing networks necessitate focusing on gate speeds within the tens of nanoseconds range. I hope that clarifies your question.
Subodh, just a quick follow-up or a housekeeping item for Jeff. Jeff, like post the equity raise, what share count should we be modeling for Q3?
Sure. So we I would say roughly $327 million-ish roughly.
Our next question comes from Quinn Bolton with Needham & Company.
Congratulations on the impressive results and the technical achievement for the midyear. I wanted to begin by discussing the roadmap regarding the size of the chiplet compared to the number of chiplets in your tiled approach. It seems that you will continue with a 9-qubit quantum processing unit in the near term. However, reaching 1,000 qubits with a 9-qubit solution would necessitate over 100 chiplets. I’m curious about when you might start to see a trade-off between the number of chiplets and the number of qubits on a single chiplet. What do you think is the ideal balance in that regard?
Good question, Quinn. Honestly, we don't know the answer right now as to when exactly would be the right time to transition from a 9-qubit chiplet to something higher. Clearly, we will do it before we get to 1,000 qubits, as you correctly said. Otherwise, we are talking about more than 100 chiplets and that will start putting unnecessary pressure on the packaging side and no reason to push it that hard at this time. Certainly, there's more flexibility on the size of the chiplet itself. So we will stay with 9 qubits at least until we get to the 100-plus qubit milestone before the end of this year. And then for next year's milestone, which would be higher qubit count and better fidelity than this year, we will look at options of staying with 9 qubit or trying to attempt something bigger like a 16 qubits, some square number, like 16, 25, 36 kind of qubits for the next chiplet size. We are doing the work right now to decide which is the next optimal chiplet size. But certainly, once we go over a few hundred qubits, we will be using a higher qubit count chiplet to get to 1,000-plus qubits.
As you go to larger square qubit tiles, would that require any significant CapEx on the equipment in Fab 1? Or do you think the existing equipment set should allow you to go to sort of any reasonable square number of qubits on a single tile?
There will always be some need for new or upgraded capital for our fab in Fremont, California. We are continuing our necessary investments there. Our Ankaa-3 chip was 84-qubit at roughly 1.5 centimeters, and the 9-qubit chip we're currently working with is 6 millimeters by 6 millimeters. We certainly have the capability to handle a chip up to 1.5 centimeters, so we don't believe we need anything drastically different from the fab to achieve a larger chiplet size. Packaging is an area we are examining as we start building more than 10 or 20 chiplets. We are assessing whether we need better quality packaging equipment or something different. We are currently working on that, but we do not believe that acquiring significantly new and expensive equipment is necessary at this time to reach a higher qubit count.
That's great. I wanted to move on to the requirement for Quantum Advantage concerning quantum error correction. This year's milestones are focused on the tiled approach and achieving 100 qubits with 99.5% fidelity by the end of the year. As you approach that 100-plus qubit solution, when do you plan to start implementing the low-density parity check error codes that were submitted as part of your QBI DARPA program?
Quantum error correction is indeed a crucial area for the long term, and it will become a more prominent topic as we approach 2026 and beyond. This year, we are focusing more on enhancing fidelity and increasing our qubit count to over 100. We are actively working on quantum error correction both independently and in collaboration with our partner, Riverlane in Cambridge, U.K. Together, we have made significant progress in demonstrating real-time error correction with some level of low latency. Our goal is to achieve real-time error correction soon, though there’s still a considerable amount of work ahead. We believe to genuinely showcase the benefits of error correction in real-time, we will need several hundred qubits operating at 99.7% or 99.8% fidelity. At this moment, we aren’t quite equipped on the hardware side to implement advanced error correction codes like the QLDPC code you mentioned. We expect to be ready for that type of work in a year or two. I hope this addresses your question.
Yes, it did. And then lastly, just any updated chatter on when the DOE National Quantum Act or the reauthorization of NQI might make it through Congress? Does it feel like there's any momentum there? Is it going in front of committees? Are there hearings being held in Congress to try to advance that bill towards signage?
Yes, absolutely. It looks like there's bipartisan support. There has been bipartisan support for a while and it continues to be the case. There are several versions of the NQI reauthorization bill that are in different committees, and a lot of hearings have happened in the last few months along those lines. The House has multiple versions. The Senate has multiple versions. Nothing has been consolidated down to a single version yet. We hope that happens in the next few weeks or months and it becomes the NQI Authorization Act. Obviously, we are looking forward to getting that done and signed, but it hasn't happened yet. But certainly, support seems to be there. And all the hearings that we have participated in ourselves as well as following. It looks like it's going to happen. It's just a question of when, not if.
Our next question comes from Richard Shannon with Craig-Hallum Capital Group.
This is Tyler Anderson on for Richard. And congrats on all the work this quarter. I was wondering, do you have any feedback or updates from QBI or NQCC to give?
I mean we certainly talk to both of the organizations, the DARPA organization as well as NQCC organization on an ongoing basis. They are very much aware of our progress. With NQCC, as we have disclosed in the past, there are several active projects that are going on right now. One of them being upgrading their existing 24-qubit system to what we have right now in California, the 4/9 qubit chiplet type system. So we are going to be working with them to upgrade their system, along with demonstrating some other fundamental technology blocks like optical interconnects and other things. So those projects are ongoing. We will continue to disclose that appropriately as we hit some technology milestones or publish some papers. With DARPA, we clearly are in Phase 1 right now. They will be narrowing the group down for Phase 2 before the end of this year. We certainly are optimistic given our results and where we are that we will make it to Phase 2, but it's ultimately DARPA's decision. Our key differentiation from everyone else is our open modular approach as well as the chiplet design. We clearly believe this is a leadership system that we have introduced with 4 chiplets. So I'm sure that will play a huge role in DARPA's decision-making. So we continue to stay optimistic on that front. But we will find out when they decide before the end of this year.
That's great. And then do you have any timeline on when you plan to reach a 16-tile chiplet? And are there any learnings that you've had from transitioning back to the chiplet approach?
We have gained a lot of insights from moving from monolithic chips to chiplets. This knowledge is part of our expertise and is reflected in the many patents we've filed in this area. Our patent portfolio is worth examining, as several patents have recently been issued. These patents highlight the critical intellectual property that positions us as leaders in chiplet technology and our unique method of scaling up. There is a significant learning curve; for instance, the design of qubits needs to be modified since we are working with chiplets instead of a single chip. Adjustments to geometries and wiring layouts are necessary. This process resembles the advances made in the CMOS industry over the past decade when they integrated chiplets and advanced devices. While some experiences are similar, the unique nature of coupling qubits across chiplets using an interposer presents new challenges and discoveries. This ongoing exploration is contributing to the development of new expertise and intellectual property.
Okay. And then are you planning on staying with a square layout for your tiles? And piggybacking off of Quinn's question, do you have any range that you could give for the logical qubit overhead for QLDPC codes?
For now, we will continue using square chiplets. Currently, we are at 9 chiplets. We expect to increase this number before reaching 1,000 qubits, and we are confident we will do so. We will definitely stick with 9 up to 100 qubits, but beyond that, we will consider using more than 9. As for logical qubits, there is no universally accepted definition. It largely depends on error correction and the setup. Therefore, we will focus on physical qubits and fidelity, which effectively provide logical qubits. Once we reach the 99.9% fidelity and exceed 1,000 qubits, we anticipate achieving an overhead of 10:1 or better, but these are just projections. There's currently no demonstration of reaching 100 logical qubits. Our projections suggest that reaching 1,000-plus qubits with 99.9% fidelity or better will put us in that expected range, but we must first reach that milestone. The definition of logical qubits and the approach to error correction play a significant role in this discussion. Thus, we will continue to rely on physical qubits, 2 qubit gate fidelity, and other clear metrics, avoiding the ambiguous nature of logical qubits, which complicate comparisons significantly. I hope that clarifies your question.
That does. And I got one more speaking of controversial. So does having this chiplet, is that garnering any more attention towards people getting any more on-premise systems, whether it's from people who you've already sold to or someone new?
We are currently working with the U.S. and U.K. governments as our main customers, and we are also engaging with other governments selectively. They are all very interested in the chiplet approach. We believe, along with many of these customers, that this is truly the only scalable way to achieve more than 1,000 qubits. The challenge with a single monolithic chip is that we cannot envision reaching over 1,000 qubits and eventually tens or hundreds of thousands of qubits, which is necessary for a fault-tolerant quantum computer. Therefore, everyone acknowledges that chiplets are essential for achieving fault-tolerant quantum computing. When we discuss this with the Department of Energy, the Department of Defense, and the U.K. National Quantum Computing Centre, they all recognize the strategic importance of chiplets in demonstrating the path to fault-tolerant quantum computing. I hope that addresses your question.
Our next question comes from Brian Kinstlinger with Alliance Global Partners.
While we both can agree that the most important metrics today are based on progress in your road map. And you've clearly stated that you still have 4 years left on that road map to achieve Quantum Advantage. Is there some combination of your 4 metrics that begin to drive revenue or larger scale orders in your opinion?
Certainly, we agree that technology development and metrics are currently the most important focus. We monitor and report on sales, but we are primarily engaging with government labs and academic institutions. The sales we do see are more like research contracts and are often one-time deals. We will continue to collaborate with the Department of Energy, Department of Defense, the U.K. government, and others where appropriate. We believe these one-off sales numbers can fluctuate widely and do not accurately reflect our overall progress. Nonetheless, there is interest from government labs and universities in acquiring on-premise quantum computers for research purposes rather than for production workflows. As we approach Quantum Advantage, we expect an increase in these types of orders. Looking at national quantum missions from various countries, including the U.S., there are substantial funding amounts in play.
The NQI reauthorization, for instance, is set at $2.5 billion over five years, translating to about $500 million annually. The DoD DARPA initiative has already been disclosed at over $0.5 billion for the current QBI initiative, with more projects expected from the DoD. In the U.K. and several other Western and select Asian countries, there are discussions about similar funding in the hundreds of millions annually, some of which will be allocated for on-premise quantum computers. We will selectively pursue these opportunities even though they are not our main focus right now, and we are confident we will secure some of them. However, we want to ensure that this does not distract from our primary goal of reaching Quantum Advantage as quickly as possible. Hopefully, that answers your question.
Our next question comes from Craig Ellis with B. Riley Securities.
Congratulations on the progress technically and Subodh on the extended visibility that it gives you to get to a 100-qubit system and beyond that. I had a question related to how the technology advances and the way you collaborate with your partner, Quanta on the way things progress. So I would expect that at some point when you scale up to larger qubit sizes, and I'm not sure what the thresholds might be. But at some point, there would be systems implications and a system for a certain qubit count would have to evolve for one of a higher qubit count. The question is, how do you ensure that Quanta is progressing with the system development issues so that as you scale up to 100 multi-hundred qubits, 1,000 qubits that on the system side, they're delivering on time and that the entire system is going to be one that works really well.
Good question, Craig. I mean, certainly, anytime you do a strategic partnership with anyone, you have to worry about those exact questions that your partner is capable of up to speed. They are not the ones who are going to slow you down and so on. And we will continue to work closely with Quanta. I mean, they are a very, very capable company, as you know. They are the leaders in CPU, GPU servers on the cloud right now. They have the #1 market share for GPU servers. They have a significantly capable and large technical team. And they are putting some of their best people on the quantum computing program right now. So we have seen no indications that they are going to drop the ball on their side. They're very actively involved. And right now, we continue to make our own control systems. But we continue to basically get them up to speed. They are very capable on the CPU, GPU side. So when it comes to the hybrid system side, they are going to be teaching us effectively on the CPU, GPU side.
So I believe the collaboration is working out great right now. It's still very early days. They are coming up to speed in 2026, at least certainly before the end of 2026. I believe we will start using control systems from Quanta. And then they'll start getting into the rest of the hardware stack. So given the overall timeline for Quantum Advantage of about 4 years from now, and that's when the volumes will start picking up in 2 to 3 years. I believe Quanta is very well positioned to help us with the acceleration ramp. I mean, that's where we really bring the strengths of high-volume, low-cost manufacturing of these GPU servers. And that's really where we will start getting the benefit of Quanta's capabilities a couple of years from now when we start talking about higher volumes. Hopefully, that answered your question.
It does. And then the follow-up question relates to the flip side of the current state of the government funding resolution issue. No, it's not yet signed. And yet I wouldn't think that that would preclude you from interacting with national labs or the DOE and talking about road map issues, technology progress. Can you just talk about the things that you're able to do with some of those entities to position the business best for when we do get those funding resolutions and the team can better realize the related revenue opportunities from them?
Yes, it's a good question. I mean we continue to engage very actively with both DOE and DoD right now. So even though the NQI reauthorization has not been signed and appropriated yet, our relationships continue to be very strong. So if you physically visit Fermilab and the SQMS center in Fermilab, you will see several dilution refrigerator systems over there incorporating our chips. One of them is the full-fledged 9-qubit system that we deployed last year. But there are many other systems that are using our chips and various experiments are being done. So along with it, we talk with other DOE labs as well. And you obviously are familiar with our involvement with QBI and the DARPA initiative. So nothing has changed from an interaction standpoint. Everyone continues to be very interested in superconducting technology and our open modular approach, particularly the chiplet approach in superconducting computing technologies.
So all that is progressing. Obviously, they are stranded without getting additional dollars from the NQI reauthorization. So they need more money to continue with their experiments. So overall, the technology is progressing well. We continue to do our roadmap. They are continuing to do their work. It's just that all of us would like the government to fund these initiatives at a higher level than what the current situation is. But as far as I can see, our internal roadmap has not been impacted that drastically because of the lack of NQI funding so far. But we certainly want our government to step up and start funding these initiatives.
This concludes the question-and-answer session. I would now like to turn it back to Dr. Subodh Kulkarni, Chief Executive Officer, for closing remarks.
Thank you for your interest and excellent questions. We look forward to updating you with our progress in future quarters. Thanks again.
This concludes today's conference call. Thank you for participating. You may now disconnect.