Investors generally believe that quantum computing is still in the realm of science fiction, but Barclays' latest research report points out that this &#34;too early&#34; illusion may cause you to miss the most critical trends in the next 12 months.
According to news from the Chasing Wind Trading Desk, Barclays' analyst team has released a new report titled &#34;Quantum Computing: Correcting Investors' Biggest Misunderstanding.&#34;
The core logic of the report is very straightforward: Wall Street has underestimated the speed of technological breakthroughs while completely misunderstanding the relationship between quantum and classical computing power (such as NVIDIA). Barclays believes we are on the brink of transitioning from &#34;laboratory toys&#34; to &#34;commercial tools.&#34;
<h2>Misunderstanding 1: Quantum Computing is &#34;Too Early&#34;</h2>
The first correction provided by Barclays is: Don't treat quantum computing as a purely long-term theme that will yield results &#34;ten years from now.&#34;
The current market generally believes that a perfectly functioning &#34;fault-tolerant quantum computer&#34; (FTQC) will not be available until after 2030. This is correct, but Barclays reminds investors, do not overlook the intermediate &#34;race points.&#34;
Barclays points out that 2026 to 2027 will be a watershed moment for the industry, when &#34;quantum advantage&#34; will be achieved.
More importantly is &#34;how to define advantage.&#34; Barclays believes, &#34;Advantage is only proven when the system targets 100 logical qubits.&#34; It also reminds that any &#34;advantage claim&#34; requires &#34;strong technical data&#34; backing; otherwise, it resembles marketing rather than a turning point.
<blockquote>
&#34;We expect significant announcements within the next 12 months... When the system can stably operate 100 logical qubits, quantum advantage will be proven.&#34;
</blockquote>
This is akin to the Wright brothers' first flight; although it cannot yet carry passengers (commercialize), it proved that airplanes are superior to horse-drawn carriages (quantum advantage). Once this signal appears, the valuation logic in the capital markets will be instantly reshaped.
<img src="https://imageproxy.pbkrs.com/https://wpimg-wscn.awtmt.com/aa5b6788-8569-431c-8b41-38709e9eaceb.png?x-oss-process=image/auto-orient,1/interlace,1/resize,w_1440,h_1440/quality,q_95/format,jpg" alt="" original-src="https://imageproxy.pbkrs.com/https://wpimg-wscn.awtmt.com/aa5b6788-8569-431c-8b41-38709e9eaceb.png"/>
<h2>Misunderstanding 2: Quantum is here, replacing classical computing, and NVIDIA is done?</h2>
This is the biggest cognitive bias in the market. The research report points out that many people believe quantum computers are so powerful that they will replace current CPUs and GPUs. Barclays counters: This is not a substitution relationship, but rather a &#34;strongest auxiliary&#34; relationship.
<blockquote>
&#34;Quantum computers will not replace classical computers as general-purpose machines, but will complement them.&#34;
</blockquote>
The core logic behind this is &#34;error correction&#34;: quantum bits are very fragile and unstable (prone to errors). To make them work properly, an extremely powerful classical computing system is needed to monitor and correct them in real-time.
Barclays' research reveals an astonishing data relationship:
<blockquote>
&#34;Each logical qubit may require a GPU for error correction and control.&#34;
</blockquote>
What does this mean? If you build a quantum computer with 1,000 logical qubits, you will need to procure 500 to 2,000 GPUs to support it
This is no longer competition, but symbiosis. The stronger quantum computers become, the more explosive the demand for NVIDIA and AMD chips. Barclays estimates that this &#34;co-demand&#34; will bring an incremental over $100 billion to the classical computing market by 2040 under the blue sky scenario.
<img src="https://imageproxy.pbkrs.com/https://wpimg-wscn.awtmt.com/b34162a5-1ab4-4b8e-8546-596744a96cc3.png?x-oss-process=image/auto-orient,1/interlace,1/resize,w_1440,h_1440/quality,q_95/format,jpg" alt="" original-src="https://imageproxy.pbkrs.com/https://wpimg-wscn.awtmt.com/b34162a5-1ab4-4b8e-8546-596744a96cc3.png"/>
<h2>Misunderstanding Three: Are quantum hardware all similar, like buying a lottery ticket?</h2>
The truth behind this misunderstanding is that the track has already differentiated, and the advantages and disadvantages are very clear.
Quantum hardware routes are not singular. Barclays categorizes the mainstream physical qubit paths into electrons (superconducting, electron spin), atoms (ion traps, neutral atoms), and photons, pointing out that their respective strengths and weaknesses come from trade-offs in speed, precision, coherence time, and external infrastructure (low temperature, lasers, vacuum) and scalability.
Barclays has highlighted the current chaotic hardware track through the &#34;quantum benchmarking model&#34;:
<ul>
<li>
Current &#34;king of precision&#34; — Ion Traps: Represented by companies Quantinuum and IonQ. Their advantages are accuracy, low error rates, and relatively mature technology.
</li>
<li>
Future &#34;dark horse of mass production&#34; — Silicon Spin: This is the direction Intel is pursuing. Although its performance is average now, it can utilize existing semiconductor factories for manufacturing, making it the easiest to mass-produce once breakthroughs occur.
</li>
<li>
Winning by quantity — Neutral Atoms: They have a natural advantage in stacking the number of qubits.
</li>
</ul>
Barclays concluded:
<blockquote>
&#34;Our tests show that ion traps are currently in the lead... but the scalability of silicon spin is worth long-term attention.&#34;
</blockquote>
<img src="https://imageproxy.pbkrs.com/https://wpimg-wscn.awtmt.com/6e9fc680-1610-4b39-8c0c-cecf3bad9692.png?x-oss-process=image/auto-orient,1/interlace,1/resize,w_1440,h_1440/quality,q_95/format,jpg" alt="" original-src="https://imageproxy.pbkrs.com/https://wpimg-wscn.awtmt.com/6e9fc680-1610-4b39-8c0c-cecf3bad9692.png"/>
<h2>Misunderstanding Four: Are passwords going to be cracked?</h2>
Regarding the panic that &#34;quantum computers will crack bank passwords tomorrow,&#34; Barclays directly poured cold water on it: You're overthinking it; the computing power is still insufficient.
To crack the current RSA encryption, thousands of perfect logical qubits are needed, while the most advanced devices currently have only dozens. Barclays bluntly stated:
<blockquote>
&#34;Quantum computers are not powerful enough yet... we are not at the point where modern encryption standards are threatened.&#34;
</blockquote>
<h2>Misunderstanding Five: There are &#34;only two or three companies to invest in&#34; quantum themes.</h2>
The market often believes that investment targets in this field are scarce and limited to a few well-known companies. However, Barclays has sorted through the entire industry chain, identifying 45 publicly listed companies and over 80 private enterprises. They are mainly distributed across four major areas:
<blockquote>
<ol>
<li>
Quantum processors (system sales or QCaaS cloud access)
</li>
<li>
Quantum supply chain (low temperature, lasers/optics, control electronics, materials, etc.)
</li>
<li>
Quantum chip design and manufacturing (overlapping with traditional semiconductor manufacturing)
</li>
<li>
Ecosystem enablers (cloud, data center infrastructure, quantum simulators, quantum-classical integration: GPU/CPU/servers, etc.)
</li>
</ol>
</blockquote>
The framework provided in the report leans more towards &#34;risk pricing&#34;: in the short term, &#34;higher revenue exposure&#34; often corresponds to &#34;higher technological risk.&#34; It roughly categorizes technological risk based on whether the business model is tied to a single route: high (single route), medium (few routes), and low (route-independent).
This also explains why the quantum narrative easily &#34;focuses only on pure quantum hardware stocks&#34;: their revenue exposure is the most direct, but the path uncertainty is also the greatest; while the supply chain, semiconductor equipment and EDA, cloud and data centers, as well as hybrid integration segments, may better accommodate the transmission of &#34;quantum progress → capital expenditure and supporting demand.&#34;
<img src="https://imageproxy.pbkrs.com/https://wpimg-wscn.awtmt.com/65e9e3c7-0d13-4466-8b19-64a817852db3.png?x-oss-process=image/auto-orient,1/interlace,1/resize,w_1440,h_1440/quality,q_95/format,jpg" alt="" original-src="https://imageproxy.pbkrs.com/https://wpimg-wscn.awtmt.com/65e9e3c7-0d13-4466-8b19-64a817852db3.png"/>
<pre><code>
The above wonderful content comes from [Chasing Wind Trading Platform](https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/uua05g5qk-N2J7h91pyqxQ).

For more detailed interpretations, including real-time analysis and frontline research, please join the【 [Chasing Wind Trading Platform ▪ Annual Membership](https://wallstreetcn.com/shop/item/1000309)】

[![](https://wpimg-wscn.awtmt.com/3c4a713c-7a38-4582-9850-d0eabaf0e7ad.png)](https://wallstreetcn.com/shop/item/1000309)</code></pre>

SOXL

NVDY

NVDA

SOXX

NVDL

NVDX

NVDU

The market mistakenly believes that quantum computing is "a matter of the next decade," but Barclays warns that the industry will encounter a decisive moment of "quantum advantage" in 2026/27. The more critical logic is that quantum computing will not replace classical computing power such as CPUs and GPUs; rather, due to its extremely high "error correction" requirements, each quantum computer will need massive amounts of GPUs as support. Quantum technology may create an additional market of over $100 billion for chip giants like NVIDIA

- Barclays' recent report argues that misconceptions about quantum computing could hinder investment opportunities over the next year.  
- The report emphasizes that quantum computing is not merely a distant future concept; significant advancements are anticipated by 2026-2027, marking a shift toward operational quantum advantage.  
- Furthermore, it highlights the symbiotic relationship between quantum and classical computing, asserting that the former will enhance rather than replace traditional systems, thus creating substantial demand for supporting technologies like GPUs.

The biggest misconception about "quantum computing": it is still "too early"