AQT PINE vs Google Willow Specs, Pricing & Performance [2026]
Quick Verdict
AQT PINE uses Trapped Ion while Google Willow uses Superconducting technology. Google Willow leads on 2Q gate fidelity (99.88%). Google Willow offers more physical qubits (105 qubits). AQT PINE's all-to-all connectivity eliminates SWAP overhead in circuit compilation.
Specification Comparison
| Metric | AQT PINE | Google Willow |
|---|---|---|
| Physical Qubits | 24 | 105 ✓ |
| Technology | Trapped Ion | Superconducting |
| 2Q Gate Fidelity | 99.50% | 99.88% ✓ |
| 1Q Gate Fidelity | 99.93% | 99.97% ✓ |
| Readout Fidelity | 99.80% | 99.90% ✓ |
| Quantum Volume | 128 ✓ | — |
| CLOPS | 100 | 100,000 ✓ |
| T1 (Relaxation) | 2000 ms ✓ | 100 µs |
| T2 (Dephasing) | 20 ms ✓ | 80 µs |
| 1Q Gate Time | 20 µs | 25 ns ✓ |
| 2Q Gate Time | 400 µs | 68 ns ✓ |
| Connectivity | All-to-All (deg 23) | Grid (deg 4) |
| Max Circuit Depth | 300 | 1,000 ✓ |
| Max Shots | 10,000 | 1,000,000 ✓ |
| Dynamic Circuits | No | No |
| Error Mitigation | No | Available |
| Cloud Platforms | 3 platforms | 0 platforms |
Green bold values with a checkmark indicate the better result for each metric.
Pricing Comparison
Example: 10-qubit, 50-depth circuit, 1,000 shots — estimated cost on cheapest platform: AQT PINE: $10.30 vs Google Willow: N/A
Trapped Ion AQT PINE
| Platform | Price | Status |
|---|---|---|
| Best Amazon Braket | $0.0100/shot | Available |
| Azure Quantum | $0.0120/shot | Available |
| qBraid | $0.0100/shot | Available |
Superconducting Google Willow
Trapped Ion vs Superconducting: Technology Tradeoffs
- Advantage
- Exceptional gate fidelities (99.9%+), long coherence times (seconds to hours), and native all-to-all qubit connectivity eliminate the need for SWAP routing that limits other architectures.
- Challenge
- Gate operations are slow (microseconds to milliseconds), limiting circuit throughput. Scaling to many ions in a single trap is difficult due to spectral crowding; modular trap architectures are being developed to address this.
- Gate Speed
- 1 µs – 1 ms per gate
- Fidelity
- 99.7–99.99% for 2-qubit gates
- Advantage
- Fast gate speeds (tens to hundreds of nanoseconds), mature fabrication technology using standard semiconductor processes, and strong industry investment make this the most commercially advanced platform.
- Challenge
- Requires dilution refrigerators operating near absolute zero (~15 mK), leading to large physical footprints and high infrastructure costs. Qubits are sensitive to noise, limiting coherence times to microseconds-to-milliseconds range.
- Gate Speed
- 10–700 ns per gate
- Fidelity
- 99.5–99.9% for 2-qubit gates
Use Case Recommendations
Higher 2Q gate fidelity (99.88%) means fewer errors in VQE/UCCSD circuits.
All-to-all connectivity maps optimization problems directly without SWAP overhead.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the difference between AQT PINE and Google Willow?
AQT PINE uses Trapped Ion while Google Willow uses Superconducting technology. Google Willow leads on 2Q gate fidelity (99.88%). Google Willow offers more physical qubits (105 qubits). AQT PINE's all-to-all connectivity eliminates SWAP overhead in circuit compilation. These QPUs use fundamentally different qubit technologies: Trapped Ion vs Superconducting.
Which is better for quantum chemistry, AQT PINE or Google Willow?
For quantum chemistry simulations (VQE, UCCSD), Google Willow is preferred due to its higher 2Q gate fidelity (99.88% vs 99.50%). Higher gate fidelity directly reduces circuit error rates in chemistry algorithms.
How do the prices compare between AQT PINE and Google Willow?
AQT PINE is available from $0.0100/shot on Amazon Braket. Google Willow is available from no public cloud access. Note that pricing models differ — per-shot pricing is directly comparable while AQT and HQC models depend on circuit structure.
Which QPU has better connectivity, AQT PINE or Google Willow?
AQT PINE offers all-to-all connectivity, meaning any qubit can directly interact with any other. This eliminates the need for SWAP gates during compilation, which is a significant advantage for algorithms like QAOA. Google Willow uses Grid connectivity.
What are the coherence times for AQT PINE vs Google Willow?
AQT PINE: T1=2000 ms, T2=20 ms. Google Willow: T1=100 µs, T2=80 µs. AQT PINE has longer coherence times, which generally allows for deeper circuits before errors accumulate.
Explore individual profiles