{ "docId": "019dd923-622c-750b-8b9a-1cc056790523", "docSlug": "340e94a59fc0", "documentTitle": "IonQ Inc. (IONQ)", "authorId": "58_Scorpion_Capital", "authorName": "Scorpion Capital", "documentKindSlug": "activist-deck", "documentKindLabel": "Activist deck", "sourceTypeSlug": "short_seller", "sourceTypeLabel": "Short seller", "presentationDate": "2022-05-03 00:00:00", "orientation": "landscape", "aspectRatio": 1.2941177, "pageNumber": 137, "pageCount": 183, "prevPage": 136, "nextPage": 138, "slideType": "expose_contradiction", "function": "expose_contradiction", "density": "overcrowded", "nDataPoints": 2, "notes": "The slide uses direct quotes to frame IonQ's technology as inferior to its competitor, Honeywell.", "elementsJson": [ "paragraph", "quote_block" ], "metadataConfidence": 1, "imagePath": null, "slideHref": "/slides/019dd923-622c-750b-8b9a-1cc056790523/137", "deckHref": "/decks/019dd923-622c-750b-8b9a-1cc056790523", "deckJsonHref": "/decks/019dd923-622c-750b-8b9a-1cc056790523.json", "deckAnchorHref": "/decks/019dd923-622c-750b-8b9a-1cc056790523#slide-137", "components": [ { "bbox": null, "kind": "callout", "text": "The executive didn't state the customer's identity, but we believe it to be Goldman Sachs, perhaps the highest profile \"customer\" that IonQ has hyped.", "attrs": null, "subkind": null, "toolName": "Visual emphasis", "toolSlug": "visual-emphasis", "confidence": null, "componentId": "019dd952-f5d2-7501-bd83-b8a947e1cf49", "frameworkName": null, "frameworkSlug": null }, { "bbox": null, "kind": "metric", "text": "gate fidelity: 97.5", "attrs": null, "subkind": "primary", "toolName": "Quantification", "toolSlug": "quantification", "confidence": null, "componentId": "019dd952-f5d2-7501-bd83-c0d2b3b3c45b", "frameworkName": null, "frameworkSlug": null }, { "bbox": { "h": 0.03, "w": 0.9, "x": 0.05, "y": 0.79 }, "kind": "paragraph", "text": "Honeywell’s gate fidelities are a “significantly big jump” above IonQ’s, which is “below par”", "attrs": null, "subkind": "paragraph", "toolName": null, "toolSlug": null, "confidence": null, "componentId": "01263039-3a2d-4341-b452-df71794ee5a0", "frameworkName": null, "frameworkSlug": null }, { "bbox": { "h": 0.03, "w": 0.9, "x": 0.05, "y": 0.35 }, "kind": "paragraph", "text": "Customers indicate dissatisfaction and that IonQ’s error rates and gate fidelities are below Honeywell’s", "attrs": null, "subkind": "paragraph", "toolName": null, "toolSlug": null, "confidence": null, "componentId": "64c1f273-741e-4d9d-85d3-7ffc532c22f0", "frameworkName": null, "frameworkSlug": null }, { "bbox": { "h": 0.03, "w": 0.9, "x": 0.05, "y": 0.6 }, "kind": "paragraph", "text": "IonQ’s trapped ion technology is inferior to Honeywell’s", "attrs": null, "subkind": "paragraph", "toolName": null, "toolSlug": null, "confidence": null, "componentId": "653616bb-bffe-4c61-8b4f-cdd5ef6da8e6", "frameworkName": null, "frameworkSlug": null }, { "bbox": { "h": 0.15, "w": 0.9, "x": 0.05, "y": 0.63 }, "kind": "quote", "text": "“If you look at the press release, even their own press release about the machine that’s currently on Braket, and you look at things like the fidelity, the error rates, and the fidelities and all those, and then compare those with their direct competitor, which is Honeywell. They’re just under the Honeywell numbers. So, the way to recreate what I just did from their own press release is to just look at their own numbers, the numbers they’ve published, and those numbers are below the Honeywell numbers. I think that their current commercially-available machine is just under par from where Honeywell is.” – Executive of a key IonQ partner, QCWare", "attrs": null, "subkind": "testimonial", "toolName": null, "toolSlug": null, "confidence": null, "componentId": "2349c916-2043-4400-aaaa-c4851e2d7788", "frameworkName": null, "frameworkSlug": null }, { "bbox": { "h": 0.12, "w": 0.9, "x": 0.05, "y": 0.82 }, "kind": "quote", "text": "“The two-qubit gate fidelity that they have published is 97.5, and this is the two-qubit gate fidelity that’s on the Braket machine. So, that’s 97.5. That’s the number for IonQ. This number is really critical. The same number for Honeywell is 99.5. So, it’s a significantly big jump. All of quantum computing is trying to get to a point where this fidelity gets to 99.999 and a few nines. That makes the case of how the current machine is below par with the Honeywell machine.” – Executive of a key IonQ partner, QCWare", "attrs": null, "subkind": "testimonial", "toolName": null, "toolSlug": null, "confidence": null, "componentId": "61c2b277-1f47-46c3-93a9-dad9e7d43662", "frameworkName": null, "frameworkSlug": null }, { "bbox": { "h": 0.2, "w": 0.9, "x": 0.05, "y": 0.38 }, "kind": "quote", "text": "“The one issue that people bring up is the fact that the fidelities on the machine that’s on Braket are not great or not exceptional; I mean, they could be better. It was one of these companies that we work with, it’s a finance company, but I don’t feel comfortable sharing their name. Very large company. They said the qubit fidelity was not on par, was essentially not what they expected, and I think they were referring to the fact that it is below the Honeywell machine. So, that comment was done in direct comparison with the Honeywell machine and basically said we’ve done experiments on Honeywell, we’ve done experiments on IonQ, and the Honeywell experiments went well; the IonQ ones didn’t because the fidelities are not good.” – Executive of a key IonQ partner, QCWare", "attrs": null, "subkind": "testimonial", "toolName": null, "toolSlug": null, "confidence": null, "componentId": "d6239850-76b9-40b2-8d10-abb8364cd74b", "frameworkName": null, "frameworkSlug": null }, { "bbox": null, "kind": "quote", "text": "\"The one issue that people bring up is the fact that the fidelities on the machine that's on Braket are not great or not exceptional; I mean, they could be better. It was one of these companies that we work with, it's a finance company, but I don't feel comfortable sharing their name. Very large company. They said the qubit fidelity was not on par, was essentially not what they expected, and I think they were referring to the fact that it is below the Honeywell machine.\" — Executive of a key IonQ partner, QCWare", "attrs": null, "subkind": null, "toolName": "Authority citation", "toolSlug": "authority-citation", "confidence": null, "componentId": "019dd952-f5d2-7501-bd83-bf98ae016360", "frameworkName": null, "frameworkSlug": null }, { "bbox": { "h": 0.02, "w": 0.3, "x": 0.05, "y": 0.96 }, "kind": "source-note", "text": "Source: Scorpion Capital consultation calls with experts", "attrs": null, "subkind": null, "toolName": null, "toolSlug": null, "confidence": null, "componentId": "3581c456-65e2-44c8-bc59-d5d9684f5c53", "frameworkName": null, "frameworkSlug": null }, { "bbox": { "h": 0.25, "w": 0.9, "x": 0.05, "y": 0.08 }, "kind": "title", "text": "One QCWare executive described customer dissatisfaction with IonQ’s error rates and gate fidelities – “not great”; “qubit fidelity was not on par.” The executive didn’t state the customer’s identity, but we believe it to be Goldman Sachs, perhaps the highest profile “customer” that IonQ has hyped. The exec continued that IonQ’s trapped ion technology is inferior to Honeywell’s, which we find damning as it’s one of three key players in trapped ion quantum computing besides IonQ. He noted that Honeywell’s gate fidelities are a “significantly big jump” above IonQ’s.", "attrs": null, "subkind": "headline", "toolName": null, "toolSlug": null, "confidence": null, "componentId": "856a7955-d5ce-4c69-bd18-3331727c3315", "frameworkName": null, "frameworkSlug": null } ], "metrics": [], "tools": [], "frameworks": [], "arcBeats": [], "loops": [], "imagePathAlt": null, "thumbSrc": null, "thumbSrcAlt": null, "locked": true }