Quantum Companies in United States by Funding

The United States has the deepest disclosed funding pool in this dataset: 11 tracked companies and about $8.7B. A large share of that total comes from public-market instruments rather than private venture rounds, which makes this the page where our distinction between equity offerings, ATM programmes and priced rounds matters most.

Public-market capital dominates the top of the table

Several of the largest rows belong to listed companies that raised cash through underwritten offerings or at-the-market programmes. Those programmes are drawn down over time and reported as a cumulative total, so a single date in the timeline can represent months of incremental issuance.

We store the programme total with the reported date and a clear round label, but we do not pretend it was a single-day round. If you want a private-VC-only view, the underlying JSON lets you exclude public-market event types and recompute the whole ranking.

Why a listing changes the comparison

A listed company has continuous access to capital, quarterly disclosure, and a market-implied valuation. A private full-stack startup has neither. Comparing their cumulative disclosed financing is still interesting — it shows how much capital each has consumed — but it is not a like-for-like measure of investor conviction at a single point in time.

This is one reason the page includes a median and a top-three concentration figure alongside the total. Averages built from a mix of public and private capital are easily dominated by one or two very large programmes.

The CHIPS Act letters of intent

Several US quantum computing companies were named in Department of Commerce letters of intent. We list each as a separate policy event with no transaction value, because a letter of intent is not a priced equity round and does not belong in a funding total. Bloomberg-style headlines about these announcements are often near-identical, so every entry on our timeline is editorially rewritten to say what specifically applies to that company.

Keeping policy signals in the timeline without letting them inflate the totals is a deliberate choice. It lets readers see where industrial policy and private capital overlap without producing a number that cannot be sourced.

Concentration and what would move it

The top three rows account for a large share of this cohort, so a single new filing can shift the regional picture noticeably. Grants, strategic investments from cloud or semiconductor partners, and corrections to previously reported programme totals are the most likely sources of change. We record corrections publicly with dates rather than silently editing the historical figure.

What the numbers on this page actually show

Of the 11 companies on this list, 11 have a disclosed cumulative figure and 0 do not. The median disclosed total is $370M; the three largest rows (Quantinuum, PsiQuantum, IonQ) account for roughly 69% of all capital tracked here, led by Quantinuum. That concentration is a property of capital-intensive hardware, not a verdict on which technology works best.

Every figure is a lower bound. Undisclosed rounds, partially disclosed RMB amounts, grants bundled into a financing package and public-market programmes drawn down over months all move the same row in different directions. We publish the underlying JSON so you can recompute the table under your own rules; the ranking rule itself is documented on the methodology page, and the reasoning behind editorial choices is on the editorial policy page.