If you had to back one qubit technology with your own money, which would it be?

[RayOfLight73]

We cover a lot of different quantum hardware on this forum. Superconducting circuits from IBM and Google, trapped ions from Quantinuum and IonQ, neutral atoms from Pasqal, QuEra and Atom Computing, photonics from PsiQuantum and Quandela, silicon spin qubits from Diraq and Intel, and more exotic approaches like topological qubits. Each camp insists its approach will scale best. I thought it would be interesting to put that to a personal test

Imagine you had to back one approach with a meaningful chunk of your own savings, with no option to diversify. Which technology would you choose, and why? I am not asking about specific companies or shares, just the underlying technology. Think of it as betting on which physics will win

Each platform has a clear case. Superconducting systems are fast and well funded but need huge fridges and lots of wiring. Trapped ions have excellent fidelity but are slower, while neutral atoms scale to thousands of qubits but have their own speed challenges. Photonics and silicon promise easier manufacturing, though they have further to go

It is also possible that more than one approach wins, each suited to different jobs. Or that something we barely talk about today ends up dominating. History is full of technologies that looked like the obvious winner and then faded

Pick your horse and make your case. Bonus points if you explain what would make you change your mind

[Scholar95]

Trapped ions have the best quality, and I think quality wins in the end. Error correction is far easier with good qubits

Speed can be engineered later. Quantinuum's fidelity numbers keep impressing me