Evaluating the performance of quantum devices is an important step towards scaling quantum devices and eventually using them in practice. The great number of available quantum metrics and the different hardware technologies used to develop quantum computers complicate this evaluation. In addition, different computational paradigms implement quantum operations in different ways. A prominent quantum metric is given by the Q-score metric of Atos. This metric was originally introduced as a standalone way to benchmark devices using the Max-Cut problem. In this work, we show that the Q-score defines a framework of quantum metrics, which allows benchmarking using different problems, user settings and solvers. To showcase the applicability of the framework, we showcase a second Q-score in this framework, called the Q-score Max-Clique. This yields, to our knowledge, the first application-level metric capable of natively comparing three different paradigms of quantum computing. This metric is evaluated on these computational quantum paradigms - quantum annealing, gate-based quantum computing, and photonic quantum computing - and the results are compared to those obtained by classical solvers.

Benchmarking quantum computers helps to quantify them and bringing the technology to the market. Various application-level metrics exist to benchmark a quantum device at an application level. This paper presents a revised holistic scoring method called the Quantum Application Score (QuAS) incorporating strong points of previous metrics, such as QPack and the Q-score. We discuss how to integrate both and thereby obtain an application-level metric that better quantifies the practical utility of quantum computers. We evaluate the new metric on different hardware platforms such as D- Wave and IBM as well as quantum simulators of Quantum Inspire and Rigetti.

With the rise of quantum computing, many quantum devices have been developed and many more devices are being developed as we speak. This begs the question of which device excels at which tasks and how to compare these different quantum devices with one another. The answer is given by quantum metrics, of which many exist today already. Different metrics focus on different aspects of (quantum) devices and choosing the right metric to benchmark one device against another is a difficult choice. In this paper, we aim to give an overview of this zoo of metrics by grouping established metrics in three levels: component level, system level and application level. With this characterization, we also mention what the merits and uses are for each of the different levels. In addition, we evaluate these metrics on the Starmon-5 device of Quantum Inspire through the cloud access, giving the most complete benchmark of a quantum device from an user experience to date.