IBM Nighthawk vs Microsoft Majorana 1 Specs, Pricing & Performance [2026]
Quick Verdict
IBM Nighthawk uses Superconducting while Microsoft Majorana 1 uses Topological technology. IBM Nighthawk offers more physical qubits (120 qubits).
Specification Comparison
| Metric | IBM Nighthawk | Microsoft Majorana 1 |
|---|---|---|
| Physical Qubits | 120 ✓ | 8 |
| Technology | Superconducting | Topological |
| 2Q Gate Fidelity | 99.50% ✓ | — |
| 1Q Gate Fidelity | 99.97% ✓ | — |
| Readout Fidelity | 99.80% ✓ | — |
| Quantum Volume | 512 ✓ | — |
| CLOPS | 6,000 ✓ | — |
| T1 (Relaxation) | 350 µs ✓ | — |
| T2 (Dephasing) | 250 µs ✓ | — |
| 1Q Gate Time | 60 ns ✓ | — |
| 2Q Gate Time | 600 ns ✓ | — |
| Connectivity | Heavy Hex (deg 3) | Linear (deg 2) |
| Max Circuit Depth | 6,000 ✓ | — |
| Max Shots | 100,000 ✓ | — |
| Dynamic Circuits | Yes | No |
| Error Mitigation | Available | No |
| Cloud Platforms | 2 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: IBM Nighthawk: $8.00 vs Microsoft Majorana 1: N/A
Superconducting IBM Nighthawk
| Platform | Price | Status |
|---|---|---|
| Best IBM Quantum | $1.60/sec | Limited |
| qBraid | $1.60/sec | Limited |
Topological Microsoft Majorana 1
Superconducting vs Topological: Technology Tradeoffs
- 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
- Advantage
- Topological protection could dramatically reduce the error rate per physical qubit, potentially enabling fault-tolerant quantum computing with far fewer physical qubits than other approaches.
- Challenge
- The technology is still in early experimental stages. Majorana zero modes have only recently been demonstrated in simplified devices. Implementing two-qubit gates between topological qubits and scaling the architecture remain unsolved engineering challenges.
- Gate Speed
- Not yet characterized at scale
- Fidelity
- Not yet characterized at scale
Use Case Recommendations
Higher 2Q gate fidelity (99.50%) means fewer errors in VQE/UCCSD circuits.
More qubits (120 qubits) allows encoding larger problem instances.
Supports dynamic circuits and mid-circuit measurement required for active error correction.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the difference between IBM Nighthawk and Microsoft Majorana 1?
IBM Nighthawk uses Superconducting while Microsoft Majorana 1 uses Topological technology. IBM Nighthawk offers more physical qubits (120 qubits). These QPUs use fundamentally different qubit technologies: Superconducting vs Topological.
Which is better for quantum chemistry, IBM Nighthawk or Microsoft Majorana 1?
For quantum chemistry, gate fidelity is the most critical metric. Compare the 2Q gate fidelity figures in the spec table above to determine which QPU is better suited for your chemistry workload.
How do the prices compare between IBM Nighthawk and Microsoft Majorana 1?
IBM Nighthawk is available from $1.60/sec on IBM Quantum. Microsoft Majorana 1 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, IBM Nighthawk or Microsoft Majorana 1?
IBM Nighthawk uses Heavy Hex connectivity (degree 3) while Microsoft Majorana 1 uses Linear connectivity (degree 2).
What are the coherence times for IBM Nighthawk vs Microsoft Majorana 1?
IBM Nighthawk: T1=350 µs, T2=250 µs.
Explore individual profiles