Quantum computing stocks are posting eye-popping revenue growth figures, but Wall Street has seen this pattern before, and it rarely ends well for retail investors.
IonQ (NYSE: IONQ) posted Q1 FY26 revenue of $64.67 million, representing a staggering 755% year-over-year increase that has captured significant market attention.
Rigetti Computing (NASDAQ: RGTI) nearly tripled its sales to $4.40 million, while D-Wave Quantum (NYSE: QBTS) reported bookings of $33.4 million, roughly 2,000% higher than the prior year.
Quantum Computing (NASDAQ: QUBT) reported a 9,364.1% revenue jump, driven almost entirely by acquisitions, making the percentage gains look far more impressive than the underlying business reality.
The problem is not the growth rates themselves but the market capitalizations sitting on top of genuinely tiny revenue bases across the entire sector.
IonQ carries a market cap of roughly $19.2 billion against FY25 revenue of $130.02 million, translating to approximately 148 times sales, with a trailing price-to-sales ratio of 109.
Rigetti trades at a trailing price-to-sales of 465, D-Wave’s trailing price-to-sales sits at 873, and Quantum Computing’s comes in at 505 on trailing revenue of just $4.3 million.
Those multiples reflect narratives far more than established businesses, and history offers a sobering guide to where such narratives tend to lead.
In November 2013, 3D Systems (NYSE: DDD) peaked near $63 on 3D printing euphoria and closed on July 1, 2026, at $2.96, a drawdown of 95.3% from that peak.
Tilray (NASDAQ: TLRY) vaulted to roughly $300 in September 2018 during the cannabis mania and closed at $4.43 on July 1, 2026, following a 1-for-10 reverse split executed on December 2, 2025.
The dot-com collapse was harsher still, with Cisco falling roughly 89% and JDS Uniphase dropping roughly 99% from their peaks during the era.
In every historical case, the revolutionary technology narrative proved correct, but the valuations proved catastrophically unsustainable for investors who bought at peak enthusiasm.
The operating fundamentals behind today’s quantum names make the historical comparison even more uncomfortable for anyone considering a long position.
IonQ’s Q1 FY26 operating loss was $271.5 million, producing an operating margin of negative 420%, while its FY25 net loss came in at $512.12 million.
Rigetti’s FY25 revenue actually shrank 34.3% to $7.09 million, paired with a net loss of $216.21 million, undermining the growth narrative considerably.
QUBT’s FY25 revenue totaled just $682,000, and its Q1 FY26 gross profit was actually a loss of $721,000 because cost of revenue exceeded sales entirely.
On The AI Investor Podcast, Eric Jhonsa noted that Jensen Huang said “quantum computing is probably at least 15 years away from being commercialized and maybe longer,” raising serious questions about near-term investment thesis viability.
Host Eric Bleeker added that today’s quantum names resemble “deeply unprofitable dot-coms” from 2000 like “Webvan and eToys and Pets.com,” a comparison that should give pause to any investor focused on capital preservation.
Reddit sentiment on IonQ registered peak bullish scores of 78 in early June 2026 before cooling to 54 by June 24, 2026, suggesting retail enthusiasm is already beginning to fade.
Price action confirmed the shifting mood, with IonQ falling 25.8% in the past month to $51.40, Rigetti dropping 27.1% to $18.68, and Quantum Computing down 49.4% over one year to $9.43.
IonQ’s CEO Niccolo de Masi told investors, “IonQ has begun 2026 with strong momentum, delivering our fourth consecutive quarter of record-breaking results and the biggest quarter in our company’s history,” a statement that was arguably equally true of 3D Systems in 2013 and Tilray in 2018.
Investors who paid 148 times, 358 times, 714 times, or 3,100 times sales at prior technology peaks rarely survived long enough to enjoy the eventual recovery that rewarded more patient capital.
