Skip to main content
KetQat

Appearance

Reference assessments

Three worked assessments, readable without an account. One rests on a classical runtime somebody actually measured, one on resource counts computed from a published paper, and one on a workload KetQat refuses to answer.

None of these is a customer's production evidence, and none supports a quantum advantage claim. They exist so you can see what the tool produces — including what it produces when the evidence is not there.

  • Classical simulation of this circuit takes 14 milliseconds on a laptop CPU. Running it on a fault-tolerant quantum computer would need thousands of physical qubits and would not be faster.

    What it demonstrates: What an assessment looks like when the classical side is a real, dated measurement rather than an estimate — and what an honest negative answer looks like.

    Read the assessment
  • Logical resource counts computed from the paper's own published formulas, costed under this estimator's surface-code model, at industrial scale.

    What it demonstrates: An assessment built entirely from a citable primary source, where the paper's own stated outcome gives an external figure to hold the estimate against.

    Read the assessment
  • Gate counts that cannot be costed fault-tolerantly, with no classical baseline and no cost model. KetQat reports what is missing instead of producing a number.

    What it demonstrates: The refusal path. This is the case most tools do not have, and it is the reason to trust the other two.

    Read the assessment