Quantum computing is no longer a novelty tucked inside academic labs or theoretical papers. It is barreling toward the mainstream, with companies investing heavily in research, talent, and experimental platforms. Erik Hosler, a pragmatic technologist driving innovation at PsiQuantum, acknowledges the pivotal tension between ambition and accountability in the quantum sector. That tension revolves around a deceptively simple question. How do we ensure that building a quantum computer makes economic sense?
This question is not peripheral. It is central. It cuts to the heart of why the quantum industry exists in the first place. Investors want a return, industries want solutions, and developers want to build systems that don’t just work but create value. In this context, the business case for quantum computing becomes not only relevant but critical to the technology’s survival and legitimacy.
From Scientific Promise to Market Reality
The seductive promise of quantum computing is well known by now: an exponentially more powerful machine that can tackle intractable problems, from breaking encryption to simulating molecular structures for drug development. But the growing focus is no longer on what quantum computing might do. It’s on when and how it will start delivering economic results.
Many emerging technologies pass through a phase of overhype before settling into practical value. The quantum space is currently at that inflection point. Early demonstrations of “quantum supremacy,” such as Google’s 2019 experiment, dazzled with raw performance but fell short of practical use. Today, quantum innovators are being held to a more grounded standard: Can your machine solve real-world problems economically?
This development in thinking means that performance metrics are no longer enough. Scalability, cost efficiency, and application alignment are becoming the new yardsticks.
ROI is the Ultimate Benchmark
Building a quantum computer isn’t cheap. Whether it uses superconducting circuits, trapped ions, or photons, the development requires extreme conditions, custom components, and intricate error correction systems. That means billions in R&D and infrastructure just to get to a baseline. So, when the business world asks, “Is this worth it?” It’s not a rhetorical question.
Erik Hosler emphasizes, “We need to build a quantum computer that doesn’t break the fab and doesn’t break the bank.” This quote does more than outline a constraint; it defines a goalpost. It implies that technological sophistication isn’t the only criterion. A quantum system must be manufactured using feasible industrial processes and affordable enough that the value it creates surpasses the cost it incurs.
In short, quantum computing needs a return on investment, or it risks becoming a billion-dollar detour in technological development.
The Manufacturing Challenge: Quantum at Scale
Semiconductor fabrication facilities are among the most advanced manufacturing environments on the planet. They operate at astonishing levels of precision and cleanliness to produce the chips on today’s computers and phones. Quantum hardware, especially systems built on photonics like those at PsiQuantum, seeks to leverage existing semiconductor infrastructure, but it’s not a plug-and-play fit.
Photon-based quantum systems rely on silicon photonics, which is more compatible with current lithography and packaging technologies than other quantum architectures. That is where quantum developers see a real opportunity: by adapting quantum devices to the existing manufacturing ecosystem, costs can be reduced, and scalability can be improved. However, that adaptation still requires innovation in areas like patterning precision, overlay control, and error minimization.
Making quantum chips in a conventional fabrication means meeting tough standards on yield, reproducibility, and throughput. That’s a tall order for technology that’s still largely in the experimental stages.
Beyond Performance: The Cost of Doing Quantum Business
Even if we assume manufacturing hurdles are cleared, the operating cost of a quantum computer remains enormous. Superconducting systems require dilution refrigerators that cool qubits to near absolute zero. Other architectures may demand custom lasers, electromagnetic traps, or vacuum chambers. None of these are cheap, and their complexity grows with system size.
The operating expenses aren’t just cooling and stability. Error correction requires layering multiple physical qubits to produce one logical qubit, often at ratios exceeding 1000 to 1. That introduces hardware bloat and adds to the engineering burden.
To justify these costs, a quantum computer must either unlock new revenue opportunities, like discovering a high-value pharmaceutical compound or generate significant savings, like optimizing a global coordination network. The value of its output must be more than theoreticality and must be financially meaningful.
When Is Quantum ROI Actually Realistic?
Despite all the constraints, there are credible paths to quantum return on investment. Here are a few of the most realistic scenarios:
- Pharmaceuticals: Simulating molecular interactions faster and more precisely could save years of experimentation and lead to new, profitable drugs.
- Materials Science: Designing novel compounds for batteries or solar panels could create competitive advantages in energy markets.
- Finance: Optimizing investment portfolios or improving fraud detection algorithms could generate returns on a massive scale.
Each of these use cases aligns well with quantum strengths and, importantly, with measurable financial upside. But even in these promising fields, quantum computers must outperform current classical solutions, not just match them.
Strategic Patience vs. Financial Urgency
One challenge for the quantum business case is time. Investors often want short-term milestones and near-term profitability. Quantum systems, however, may require years or even decades to become commercially viable. It creates tension between scientific timelines and financial expectations.
To resolve this, some companies are exploring hybrid models: using classical and quantum hardware in tandem or offering cloud-based access to early-stage quantum systems for research and experimentation. These approaches generate incremental revenue and build user familiarity while full-scale systems are still under development.
The Role of Government and Public-Private Funding
Given the enormous upfront cost and long-term horizon, government funding plays a critical role in quantum R&D. National initiatives in the US, EU, China, and elsewhere are providing billions in support. These programs are vital for sustaining research that might otherwise be too slow or too risky for private investment.
But government dollars come with expectations usually tied to national security, economic competitiveness, or scientific leadership. It adds another layer of pressure on companies to prove that their machines aren’t just clever.
Closing the Loop: Why ROI Still Rules
In the end, the business case for quantum computing will not be won by theory or raw capability. It will be won by proof, proof that a quantum computer can solve a real problem faster, better, or cheaper than anything else. That’s the only outcome that will satisfy markets, justify funding, and ensure that quantum moves from lab to ledger.
The industry’s challenge is not just to build powerful machines but to deliver systems that meet the thresholds of manufacturability and financial logic. Quantum computing holds incredible promise, but that promise must be backed by performance that delivers tangible, sustainable economic returns. Now more than ever, it must be ROI or nothing.