Rigetti Computing vs. D-Wave Quantum: Which Quantum Computing Stock Is the Better Buy?

The article compares Rigetti Computing and D-Wave Quantum, both of which received up to $100 million in U.S. government support under the 2022 CHIPS and Science Act. D-Wave reported a $53.3 million Q2 operating loss and a 1,120% year-over-year increase in first-half backlog to $35.5 million; Rigetti's operating loss was $28.1 million, and it reported more quarterly revenue. The article characterizes D-Wave as the lower-risk choice, with a clearer path to revenue recognition, and Rigetti as the higher-risk, higher-reward option pursuing general-purpose quantum computing.

Analysis

The key distinction is revenue quality versus technology optionality—not simply “lower risk” versus “higher reward.” QBTS’s backlog only has investment value if it converts to recognized revenue and cash collections; a large, long-dated or cancellable backlog can mask weak near-term demand. Its greater operating cash use makes conversion and cash runway central near-term variables. Conversely, RGTI’s gate-model positioning is not yet a monetizable advantage unless hardware progress translates into customer workloads and repeatable economics. Amazon access is distribution, not proof of commercially material adoption.

Over the next 1–3 months, scrutinize backlog conversion, cash burn, contract terms and any change in government-support timing. Public funding can extend runway and validate strategic importance, but should not be capitalized as recurring demand; delays or conditions could matter disproportionately for companies funding long development cycles. Over 6–18 months, the main upside catalyst is independently verifiable customer use; the key downside is continued spending without commercial milestones. For QBTS, classical and hybrid optimization tools are the immediate substitute; for RGTI, error correction, scaling and competition for cloud workloads determine whether its broader theoretical market becomes economically accessible.

Contrarian point: backlog growth and a broader eventual market can both be overvalued as proxies for durable revenue. The article provides no contract-level conversion schedule, cash runway comparison, or valuation support; the close market-cap figures do not establish comparable risk-adjusted value. Avoid treating either as a conventional growth compounder until commercial evidence improves.

Key Decisions for Investors

• No outright long based on the supplied evidence. Before adding either name, verify quarterly cash balances and burn, customer concentration, contract cancellation terms, and the portion of QBTS backlog expected to convert within 12 months.
• For a speculative relative-value expression, consider a small, defined-risk QBTS-over-RGTI pair only if QBTS demonstrates backlog conversion and cash-burn stabilization while RGTI’s customer revenue remains unproven. Reassess after the next results; do not assume the pair is market-neutral.
• Falsify the QBTS preference if backlog converts slowly, collections lag revenue, or operating cash use accelerates; that would weaken the near-term visibility case. A material RGTI customer workload or repeat deployment would instead strengthen its case.
• Treat government support as a runway catalyst, not a standalone buy signal. Track award timing and conditions; a delay or reduction would raise financing and dilution risk, especially if commercial milestones also slip.