A common question I get is: “So… is quantum better than classical?”
The honest answer is: it’s very hard to compare them fairly.
Here’s why.
1️⃣ Problem formulation matters:
- Small changes in how a problem is written can drastically change performance — for both quantum and classical methods.
- If the formulation favours one side, the comparison isn’t meaningful.
2️⃣ Classical baselines improve constantly:
- Classical algorithms and hardware are extremely mature. GPUs, distributed systems, optimization tricks — they’re evolving fast.
- A “quantum win” today might disappear once classical baselines are improved.
3️⃣ Overheads are real:
Running something on quantum hardware includes:
- measurement
- repetition for statistics
- classical optimization loops
These overheads matter in practical settings.
4️⃣ Noise and scale:
Current quantum devices are noisy and limited in size. That means:
- Results can be unstable
- Scaling behaviour is not fully understood
- Simulators can sometimes outperform real devices
This is why serious researchers are cautious when claiming performance advantages.
It’s not that quantum has no potential —it’s that fair comparison is a very technical and careful process.
In business contexts, this is even more important. You don’t want to compare a well-optimized classical pipeline with a prototype quantum experiment. That’s not apples-to-apples.
In this community, we’ll always ask: “Is this comparison fair?” Because that question alone filters out a lot of noise.
Question:
If you had to compare two technologies fairly, what do you think is the most important factor — speed, accuracy, cost, or scalability?