Start 30 days free, no card. Full Pro access for a month, then decide. Start free
Analyst
John McPeake
Period: Reporting periods mapped to calendar 2025 Q3 – 2026 Q2 (4 quarters).
- Questions
- 11on tracked calls
- Challenge rate
- 9%1 of 11 questions
- Companies
- 3questioned at least once
- Reporting periods
- 4with questions
These figures cover the whole profile: every tracked question, all reporting periods.
How to read these numbers
Challenge rate is the share of questions that pushed back, pressed for specifics or questioned management’s assumptions. It describes how questions were asked on the calls tracked here; it does not measure whether any view turned out to be right.
Rounding. Rates are rounded to whole percentages, so a small share can show as 0% even when some questions were challenging. The count beside each rate is exact; “none of N questions” means no question was challenging.
No questions recorded. “—” means there is nothing to calculate: no questions were recorded for that period on the calls tracked here. It does not mean there was no activity.
Fewer than 3 questions. A company-level rate is withheld when fewer than 3 questions were recorded for that company; the questions are still counted everywhere else.
Small samples. Profiles with fewer than 10 questions are marked Limited sample.
Reporting periods. Questions are grouped by the calendar quarter each company’s fiscal reporting period maps to, not by the date of the call. Periods without a calendar mapping are listed separately under their fiscal label.
Questions asked
Grouped by company, most questions first. Open a company to read its questions, newest reporting period first.
Showing 11 of 11 questions from 3 companies
IONQIonQ, Inc.5 questions · 4 reporting periods · 1 of 5 challenging
Calendar 2026 Q2
this would be attracting serious interest from new customers. Is there any color you can give us there on interest?
Show response
de Masi framed IonQ as the leading, roughly half-the-sector quantum company across computing, security, networking, and sensing, without specific new-customer detail.
Calendar 2026 Q1
Could you talk a little bit about the likely delivery schedule
Show response
de Masi cited strong Tempo demand and early 256 demand with more wins to be announced, but gave no delivery schedule or revenue split.
Calendar 2025 Q4
How should we think about what you might be able to address relative to that number?
Show response
Singh framed SHIELD as a solution sale IonQ is well positioned for, without quantifying an addressable share.
Calendar 2025 Q3
trying to get a sense qualitatively at least, what could that do to revenue growth at the company?
Show response
Ballance and Kassmann described a hockey-stick of unlocked applications; de Masi deferred quantitative revenue impact to 2026 guidance.
the language in the Q on the year-over-year revenue growth mentioned the acquisition of Oxford Ionics as a cause
Show response
Singh said the Oxford disclosure is substantive; the deal accelerated the roadmap 2+ years and leverages the semiconductor ecosystem.
QBTSD-Wave Quantum Inc.3 questions · 3 reporting periods · 0 of 3 challenging
Calendar 2026 Q2
Was 2Q the first quarter of the two year $10 million deal that you had talked about
Show response
Markovich said revenue recognition on the $10M enterprise QCaaS deal began in Q1; Baratz called it the prototype for larger multi-application QCaaS deals.
Calendar 2026 Q1
Could you give us a sense as to what you're targeting for 2 qubit gate fidelities out there?
Show response
Baratz said fidelity is already 99.9% on a small system and dual-rail should improve on Google Willow by roughly 5x.
Calendar 2025 Q3
what the tone is like there because that's real business
Show response
Baratz said larger companies are engaging on bigger optimization problems, with the Advantage2 platform and NL hybrid solver improving results toward an inflection.
RGTIRigetti Computing, Inc.3 questions · 3 reporting periods · 0 of 3 challenging
Calendar 2026 Q2
deferred revenues ticked up more than in any quarter I've seen in the history.
Show response
The CFO attributed the deferred-revenue jump to prepayments on the $8.4 million C-DAC order.
Calendar 2026 Q1
You're saying later this year, I think, to get to 99.5% from 99.1% maybe we could just dig in a little bit
Show response
Management said coherence time, currently 25 to 30 microseconds, is the limiting factor and must roughly double to reach 99.5%.
Calendar 2025 Q4
the 150-plus qubit system that you guys had originally planned for by the end of this year at 99.7% 2-qubit gate fidelity
Show response
Management confirmed the 150-plus qubit system remains targeted for year-end 2026 while most effort has shifted to the 1,000-qubit goal.
Challenge rate by company
Every company this analyst questioned, most questions first. A company-level rate is shown from 3 questions; below that it is withheld.
| Company | Questions | Challenge rate |
|---|---|---|
| IONQ IonQ, Inc. | 5 | 20%1 of 5 questions |
| QBTS D-Wave Quantum Inc. | 3 | 0%none of 3 questions |
| RGTI Rigetti Computing, Inc. | 3 | 0%none of 3 questions |
Activity by reporting period
Questions recorded for each calendar quarter that companies’ reporting periods map to (not the call date), with the challenge rate for that period. Periods inside the range with no questions are shown as “No questions recorded”.
| Calendar period | Questions | Challenge rate | Companies |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2025 Q3 | 3 | 33%1 of 3 questions | 2 |
| 2025 Q4 | 2 | 0%none of 2 questions | 2 |
| 2026 Q1 | 3 | 0%none of 3 questions | 3 |
| 2026 Q2 | 3 | 0%none of 3 questions | 3 |
- 2025 Q33 questions · challenge rate 33% (1 of 3 questions) · 2 companies
- 2025 Q42 questions · challenge rate 0% (none of 2 questions) · 2 companies
- 2026 Q13 questions · challenge rate 0% (none of 3 questions) · 3 companies
- 2026 Q23 questions · challenge rate 0% (none of 3 questions) · 3 companies
Topics
Topics tagged on this analyst’s questions.
- Revenue Growth5
- Demand4
- Innovation & R&D4
- Competitive Dynamics1
- Product Launch1
- Regulation Policy1
- M&A1