Architecture Comparison Capstone
There is no universally best quantum architecture: a defensible comparison fixes one workload, then scores each architecture on topology fit, native decomposition, timing, and dated error evidence. Illustrative arithmetic shows a trapped-ion archetype winning per-shot success (0.970 vs 0.904 on a ten-gate circuit) while a superconducting archetype runs thousands of times more shots per second — the ranking depends on the circuit and the evidence, never on one headline number.
Why is there no universal winner?
"Which QPU is best?" is an incomplete question — like asking "which vehicle is best?" without saying whether you are moving a parcel or a piano. The completed question is: best for this circuit, under this deadline, judged by this standard of evidence.
A defensible comparison works through a fixed checklist, all of it built in earlier lessons:
- Execution model — gate-based or annealing; if they differ, stop comparing (see lesson 7).
- Qubit definition — physical qubits, or error-corrected logical qubits built from many physical ones (see lesson 2).
- Topology — which pairs can interact directly, and what routing costs (lesson 8).
- Native gates — what your circuit compiles into, and its real pulse count (lesson 9).
- Timing — gate durations and repetition rate.
- Error evidence — fidelities with method, scope, aggregation, date, uncertainty (lessons 10–11).
- Disclosure limits — what is simply not published, recorded as such.
The rest of this capstone runs one small workload through that checklist with real arithmetic.
You’ve read the opening of chapter 12 — 6 more sections follow, with worked examples and circuits you can run on the page. A free account unlocks every chapter of every course (paid plans aren’t live yet — early readers get everything free).