Quantum Computing: Collaboration, competition and the unknown

In October 2023, a team led by Chinese quantum physicist Pan Jianwei at the University of Science and Technology of China (USTC) announced Jiuzhang 3.0, a photonic quantum prototype that solved a sampling problem in one microsecond, a task that would take the world’s top supercomputer over 20 billion years according to some classical-simulation estimates.

Quantum computing is producing achievements that would once have belonged in science fiction: machines performing calculations impossible for classical supercomputers, photons manipulated at scale and algorithms theoretically capable of breaking global encryption. Yet for every breakthrough, a dozen questions remain, and the true potential is still a mystery.

How will today’s most promising demonstrations translate into world-changing applications? How soon can experimental systems become functional at scale? For now, quantum computing sits in a space between extraordinary progress and fundamental uncertainty.

“We have made plenty of theoretical progress, but there is also a lot we still don’t know,” says Bruce Schneier, fellow at the Berkman Klein Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University and a Lecturer in Public Policy at the Harvard Kennedy School. “We are making a lot of assumptions based on theory, and until we get properly working quantum computers you simply can’t test if those assumptions are accurate.”

The quantum question

Quantum computing is not just another emerging technology; rather, it seems to represent a fundamental rethinking of how information can be processed and a potential leap in computational capability that could transform fields from artificial intelligence and pharmaceutical development to cryptography and logistics optimization.

But at the same time, even scientists working in the field find it hard to explain, let alone control. So, bear with us while we try our best to simplify the seemingly unsimplifiable.

Although not a perfect comparison, Schrödinger’s cat is often used as an example to help explain the difference between classical and quantum computing. Classical computers process information in bits, which can be measured as a binary outcome, either a one or a zero. In this example, a classical bit is like a normal cat: it is either dead or alive.

Quantum computers, on the other hand, use qubits, which can exist in superpositions of states, meaning that they can represent multiple values simultaneously. A qubit is more like Schrödinger’s cat before observation—it is potentially alive or dead, and can be argued to be in both states at once.

“A beauty of quantum computers is that they will offer a more subtle way of thinking about problems that goes beyond binary—that goes beyond simple 0 or 1, Yes or No, True or False,” wrote Dario Gil, Director of IBM Research, in an IBM press release. “But that doesn’t mean there won’t be specific answers in the end. Quantum computing will make it possible to confront many of the world’s most complex problems that are beyond the ability of classical binary computing to quickly solve.”

It is possible that quantum computing could accelerate molecular modeling for new drugs, optimize energy grids or logistics networks, and revolutionize AI model training. But at the same time, it is also something of an idiot savant in that it can do certain things very well, but is not a panacea for all classical computing limitations.

In short, we should not be viewing this as a linear transition from one stage to the next (e.g., moving from 4g to 5g telecommunications), but rather as a specialized iteration of computing with significant but also limited implications.

“It’s not faster at everything—binary computers beat it on normal operations like adding two plus two—but for certain types of problems, quantum computers can solve them a lot quicker than a traditional binary computer,” says Roger Grimes, author of Cryptography Apocalypse: Preparing for the Day When Quantum Computing Breaks Today’s Crypto.

Potential quantum impacts

Because of its specialized applications, arguably the most disruptive potential for quantum computing lies in cryptography. Shor’s Algorithm is a quantum algorithm that can factor large numbers exponentially faster than any classical algorithm, and quantum computers are powerful enough to run the An algorithm could render current RSA encryption—where users encrypt messages with a code called a public key that can be shared openly—obsolete, undermining the security foundations of global digital infrastructure.

According to Michele Mosca, co-founder of the Institute for Quantum Computing at the University of Waterloo, at some point in the future, quantum computers will be powerful enough to crack standard encryption protocols, and this could lead to considerable security issues for organizations that fail to update their cryptography regimes to withstand quantum attacks.

“Implementing quantum-safe cryptography in a given organization requires time and resources to ensure success and avoid errors,” he added in the Global Risk Institute Quantum Threat Timeline Report 2024.

Even industries not reliant on high-performance computing will encounter near-term impacts. Banks must begin inventorying cryptographic dependencies to avoid future compliance shocks. Pharmaceutical companies face a strategic choice between investing in early quantum-enhanced molecular modeling—potentially shaving years off R&D timelines—or waiting for stable platforms at the risk of ceding first-mover advantage. The strategic stakes are no longer hypothetical; they concern capital allocation, partnership risk and cybersecurity resilience today.

But even though there are short-term considerations to be made, progress towards quantum goals is uneven and inconsistent. Building a fault-tolerant, general-purpose quantum computer remains possibly years—if not decades—away. Qubits are fragile and error-prone—it is difficult to keep them stable enough to utilize—and the more you use the harder they are to keep control of.

“We know from Shor’s Algorithm that both factoring and discrete logs are easy to solve on a large, working quantum computer, but both of those are currently beyond our technological abilities,” says Schneier. “We barely have quantum computers with 50 to 100 qubits. Extending this requires advances not only in the number of qubits we can work with, but in making the system stable enough to read any answers.”

China’s quantum strategy

China’s government has identified quantum technology as a national strategic priority, stating in the country’s new Five-Year Plan (2026–2030) that the goal is to “promote cutting-edge industries such as quantum technology to become new economic growth points.” The plan signals a shift from merely catching up to aspiring to leadership in frontier technologies, of which quantum computing/quantum information is one. Central to China’s effort is a coordinated quantum innovation ecosystem linking universities, research institutes and industry.

“In China, quantum is a true number one priority, so much so that many people outside of the industry even know the name of their top quantum scientist,” says Grimes. “Huge amounts of money flow into the sector, whether to universities or companies, through subsidies or tax breaks. Even if the spending is inefficient around the edges, the sheer quantity of funding and talent means that progress will inevitably be made.”

The scientist, Pan Jianwei, a professor of physics at the University of Science and Technology of China (USTC)—often called the “father of Chinese quantum”—has built a nationwide network of labs specializing in photonics and quantum communications. One such example was the Jiuzhang photonic quantum computer, which, in 2020, was the first photonic computer to claim quantum supremacy—demonstrating that a programmable quantum computer can solve a problem that no classical computer can solve in any feasible amount of time. The Jiuzhang 3.0 computer runs with 105 qubits.

Google’s Sycamore claimed quantum supremacy in 2019, the first quantum computer using superconducting materials, rather than photons, to do so. The Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS) is also pursuing superconducting qubit research through its Zuchongzhi quantum processor series, which was announced to have achieved. 66-qubit and 176-qubit experiments in 2021 and 2023, respectively.

Private-sector participation in China is growing, but typically within a state-supported framework. Companies like Origin Quantum, spun out from USTC, and QuantumCTek, a quantum communications firm, commercialize research while benefiting from government contracts and funding.

Major tech firms such as Alibaba (via its DAMO Academy) and Huawei have quantum research programs but operate in closer coordination with national strategy than their Western counterparts, who include the ubiquitous tech giants such as Google, IBM, Microsoft and Nvidia.

The centralized approach offers both strengths and trade-offs. China’s ability to mobilize resources and coordinate across institutions accelerates progress and reduces duplication. However, it may constrain open collaboration and limit exposure to diverse global perspectives—crucial ingredients for scientific innovation.

“China is definitely in the top five, if not number two, in quantum development,” says Grimes. “What they excel at is scaling—if they have 1,000 of something and they need a million, they’ll throw money and engineers at it until it exists. Creativity matters for the early breakthroughs, but once the approach exists, brute-force engineering and resources can win out.”

Comparing quantum ecosystems

Whereas China’s model is state-driven, the United States and Europe rely more heavily on private capital and academic-industry collaboration. Companies such as IBM, Google, IonQ and Quantinuum lead the commercial frontier, supported by open cloud access that allows developers worldwide to test algorithms on quantum hardware.

But the contrast is less about ideology than about innovation governance. In the West, competition among private firms drives rapid prototyping, but also fragmentation and uneven research focus. In China, state coordination creates unified direction but risks bureaucratic inefficiency. Meaning that Chinese systems may generate headline-grabbing demonstrations sooner, while Western platforms could reach commercial utility first.

China’s photonic systems, such as USTC’s Jiuzhang, lead in specialized sampling benchmarks—tasks that prove quantum supremacy over classical supercomputers. Western systems, notably IBM’s Eagle and Condor processors, lead in quantum volume—a metric that measures the capabilities and error rates of a quantum computer—and error correction fidelity—quantum computers with low qubit fidelity to execute algorithms of higher complexity. Both are key metrics for scalability.

“For years, Chinese quantum breakthroughs were met with skepticism. For example, they made claims about breaking RSA, and when you read the paper, that’s not what it actually said,” says Grimes. “But over the last year or two, they’ve stepped up their game. I no longer dismiss China’s announcements; they appear to be making steady improvements and serious investments.”

As a result, leadership is multi-dimensional, and taking conclusions from both IBM and Nature publications, it can be argued that: China excels in photonic experimentation, while Western firms dominate in commercial readiness and gate-based architectures—a model in which computations are performed by applying a sequence of quantum logic gates analogous to how classical logic gates process bits in conventional computers.

For business leaders, the strategic question is not simply what quantum computers might do, but what to prepare for now. CEOs navigating global partnerships face an emerging divide: Chinese firms increasingly bundle quantum-secure communications and cloud-based quantum simulators into broader digital transformation offerings, while Western providers focus on open-access experimentation and ecosystem development.

These differences will influence procurement decisions, intellectual property strategies and the future structure of tech partnerships.

Collaboration or competition?

Despite rhetoric about a “quantum race,” the field remains interconnected in various places. Chinese and Western scientists continue to co-author academic papers, attend conferences together and share theoretical insights. Yet growing geopolitical friction—especially around technology export controls and national security—has strained collaboration.

For example, the US has introduced export restrictions on advanced quantum components and simulation software, citing dual-use concerns. In response, China has accelerated efforts to localize supply chains, developing indigenous fabrication capabilities for cryogenic systems, lasers and control electronics. The result may be a strategic bifurcation—parallel ecosystems evolving under different governance, standards and norms.

Quantum computing occupies a paradoxical space: it is both a collaborative global science but also a strategic technology with profound security implications. Governments must balance open research ecosystems against the need to protect sensitive know-how.

“On the science side, it does not feel like there is a race in the same way we used the word to describe nuclear proliferation in the Cold War,” says Schneier. “Science is global, and everyone is talking to everyone else, regionalism is not really how it works.”

But on the security side, cryptography is again the dominant discussion. Quantum algorithms capable of breaking RSA encryption could endanger global financial systems, secure communications and data privacy. As well as having myriad impacts on national security and defence.

The impact will also be uneven, with wealthier states and major corporations able to transition to post-quantum cryptography, while small businesses, NGOs and developing nations will be unable to as easily.

“This is why cryptographers are hard at work designing and analyzing, ‘quantum-resistant’ public-key algorithms,” says Schneier. “But currently, quantum computing is too nascent for cryptographers to be sure of what is secure and what isn’t.”

Outside of cryptography, the potential of first-mover advantage can be found across a wide range of industries. In pharmaceuticals and materials science, firms able to simulate molecular structures or optimize catalysts at the quantum scale may dominate innovation pipelines. Governments with domestic quantum capacity could capture higher value in drug discovery and industrial R&D. Those without it risk dependency on foreign technologies and intellectual property.

These dynamics echo past technological shifts—from the internet to AI, for instance—where early access compounds advantage. Quantum computing could deepen these divides by concentrating computational power in the hands of a few actors.

According to the OECD STI Outlook 2023, “Countries that lack investment capacity in quantum infrastructure risk becoming dependent on foreign providers. This could deepen digital-era inequality, similar to what happened with cloud computing, but on a more strategic level.”

Scenarios for the quantum future

Three main plausible scenarios could define the next decade of quantum computing development. The first is one of multipolar progress, where we see incremental advances across multiple hardware families. China looks likely to continue leading in photonics, while Western firms do so in gate-based architectures. Collaboration will continue in basic research despite strategic tension.

For businesses, multipolar progress means maintaining partnerships in both ecosystems. Pharmaceutical companies may need parallel R&D pipelines—one optimized for Chinese photonic platforms and another built around Western superconducting or trapped-ion systems. Financial institutions should design post-quantum migration plans that assume heterogeneous standards across markets.

The second is strategic bifurcation, where technological ecosystems diverge—one centered on the US and allies, the other on China—driven by supply chain localization and national security imperatives.

In a bifurcated world, firms operating in both China and Western markets may confront incompatible hardware, divergent cryptographic standards and restrictions on cross-border research. CEOs will need to decide whether to prioritize market access or technological alignment—particularly in sectors like healthcare, aerospace or critical infrastructure.

Another alternative is where we see an unexpected breakthrough. For example, this could be a fault-tolerant quantum machine that emerges unexpectedly, triggering global disruption of cryptographic systems, massive value creation for early adopters and a scramble for post-quantum adaptation.

If a fault-tolerant machine emerges suddenly, the immediate priority for most companies will be identifying and patching vulnerable cryptographic systems before they are exploited.

Which scenario prevails will depend less on scientific milestones than on institutional coordination, ethical governance and international standards.

The quantum leap

Whether quantum technologies expand global prosperity or amplify digital-era inequality will depend on decisions made today about governance, access and security. Quantum computing sits at the intersection of science, industry and geopolitics, and China’s sustained investment has made it a major, well-resourced player with genuine scientific leadership.

Yet quantum advantage is not a single finish line. It will be a continuum of breakthroughs, each reshaping the balance of power between open knowledge and strategic secrecy. But when those breakthroughs will come, and exactly to what end, is still the quantum question.

“Going from where we are now to a ‘working’ quantum computer is going to be very hard,” says Schneier. “The issue is that we don’t know if it is going to be landing someone on the surface of the moon hard, or landing someone on the surface of the sun hard.”