Jensen Huang, co-founder and CEO of Nvidia (NVDA +0.39%), has been right about a lot of things. After all, you don't lead a business to generate revenue of more than $100 billion annually unless you've made some prescient decisions. But when it comes to assessing the quantum computing development timeline, the CEO of D-Wave Quantum (QBTS 1.01%), Dr. Alan Baratz, says Huang is "dead wrong."
When Huang was asked about quantum computers on Jan. 7 at the CES expo in Las Vegas, he said it could be 15 to 30 years before there are "very useful" quantum computers. Since that statement, quantum computing stock prices have nosedived. Just consider how quantum computing exchange-traded fund (ETF) Defiance Quantum ETF (QTUM +0.16%) is dropping like a rock.
Data by YCharts.
Shares of D-Wave Quantum have fared far worse than the Defiance Quantum ETF. As of this writing, D-Wave stock is down more than 60% from its highs in 2025 and the year isn't even two weeks old yet.
That's why Baratz is speaking out against Huang's timeline. As the CEO of D-Wave, he believes there's a lot of misunderstanding regarding the quantum computing space. And he wants to set the record straight.
Quantum computing is a complex conversation topic
It's important to note here that Huang and Baratz are both intellectual heavyweights. Huang has a Master of Science in Electrical Engineering from Stanford University. For his part, Baratz has a PhD from MIT in computer science. In short, both individuals are brilliant and have informed opinions on this subject -- opinions that are higher quality than those of most investors.
It's also important to remember that quantum computing isn't a pedestrian subject matter. Whereas many people can wrap their minds around classical computers that run on a binary code of zeros and ones, quantum computers go beyond the binary options, which complicates things. With a superposition, quantum bits -- qubits -- can be zero and one at the same time.
The short explanation is that this makes quantum computers far more powerful than classical computers. Many have explained it using a maze example. Imagine a maze with 1,000 possible paths. A classical computer can exit the maze by trying every option, one by one. By contrast, a quantum computer attempts all possibilities simultaneously, reaching the solution in a fraction of the time.
NYSE: QBTS
Key Data Points
I'm not an electrical engineer or a computer scientist. But I don't need a degree to see that quantum computers could be one of the greatest technological advancements ever.
The problem is that D-Wave isn't the only publicly traded quantum computing stock -- there are many companies and they're all very different in how they manage the development of their quantum computers. Rigetti Computing (RGTI 1.82%) uses a superconducting approach whereas IonQ (IONQ 3.45%) uses trapped ions. Then there are companies that use gate-model architecture and others, such as D-Wave, that use a quantum-annealing process.
If none of this makes sense, that's the point I'm making: The space is complex because quantum computing companies aren't all the same. There are different approaches and there are very bright people working on all sides. In short, investors need to cautiously avoid quickly drawing overconfident conclusions.
Could Baratz and Huang both be right?
Jensen Huang said, "If you kind of said 15 years for very useful quantum computers, that would probably be on the early side." For his part, Huang indicated that he believes very useful quantum computers are closer to 20 years away. But Dr. Baratz strongly disagrees.
Baratz went on CNBC to explain. He said that Huang is "dead wrong" because D-Wave is "commercial today." But remember, this is a complex subject. And with complexity, there's an acute need for nuance. And that could be true here as well.
Indeed, D-Wave has commercialized its quantum computers. The company generated revenue of $1.9 million in the third quarter of 2024, had bookings of $2.3 million, and had 132 customers. Therefore, Baratz's statement is true: D-Wave is indeed commercial today, as is Rigetti, IonQ, and others.
Does this mean that quantum computers are "very useful"? Not necessarily. Therefore, Huang could still be right as well.
To me, there are two options here. Either Huang overstates the timeline because he doesn't understand the quantum-annealing process or Baratz overstates the usefulness of D-Wave's computers today.
With due respect, I'm inclined to believe the latter option. According to Dr. Baratz, gate-model architecture could be 15 years away because it's inferior to quantum annealing. But in fairness, gate-based companies such as IonQ are also commercial today by Baratz's definition. Moreover, with bookings of nearly $64 million in its third quarter, IonQ is actually further along in the commercialization process.
Whether you agree with me or not, I think the investor takeaway is that the quantum computing space is extremely promising but the complexity makes it very hard for the average person to invest.
For this reason, the Defiance Quantum ETF might be the better investment option for those who are interested in this tech subsector. It allows investors to participate in the upside in the space without trying to pick individual winners.
Editor's note: An earlier version of this story incorrectly noted the author's viewpoint regarding which man was correct about the timeline for usefulness. The author is inclined to believe that Dr. Baratz overstates the usefulness of D-Wave's computers today.
