Executive Summary 

The United States has developed substantial infrastructure that is broadly aligned with the quantum industry’s current level of maturity, but its usefulness is constrained by fragmented access and gaps in capabilities that support flexible process development and scale-up. As quantum technologies move from the lab toward commercial applications, access to fabrication, characterization, prototyping, packaging, testing, validation, and process development capabilities becomes increasingly important.

This report assesses the extent to which United States (U.S.) infrastructure supports current and anticipated quantum-related technology development needs. It also identifies opportunities for federal investment and coordination to improve access and infrastructure capabilities and to address existing and anticipated capability gaps.

This assessment focuses on U.S. federally funded facilities and programs that provide or coordinate prototyping, testing, and evaluation capabilities for quantum technologies. These include federal laboratories, federally funded research and development centers (FFRDCs),
mission-driven research centers, manufacturing institutes, and federally sponsored networks and hubs that connect capabilities across organizations.

A mixed-methods approach was adopted for this assessment, including a landscape review, creation of an infrastructure inventory, site visits, interviews, and a survey of over 300 experts. The following findings emerged from research, surveys, and interviews.

Key Findings 

• Substantial technical foundation: The United States has substantial capabilities to support quantum technology research and development, from basic research collaboration to pilot-scale manufacturing. However, technical strengths are unevenly distributed across technologies and development stages, with the greatest concentration in specialized nanofabrication and materials processing, superconducting-device fabrication, cryogenic testing, and integrated photonics. 

• Uneven user awareness: Providers were generally more willing and able to work with external users than prospective users assumed. Survey respondents who had engaged with facilities reported that, generally, their needs were partially to mostly met, suggesting that existing infrastructure can provide meaningful value when users are able to identify an appropriate provider and access pathway. 

• Fragmented infrastructure landscape: Federally funded capabilities are distributed across facilities, programs, agencies, and regions. Often, providers operate independently, maintaining separate access policies and procedures, funding models, missions, and operating priorities. In the survey, 69% of all respondents recognized at least one listed facility or program, and nearly 55% of all respondents reported using at least one, indicating that awareness and discoverability shape utilization. 

• Dependency of effective capacity on more than equipment: In interviews, providers did not indicate widespread capacity constraints. Instead, they indicated that practical capacity was often limited by availability to specific tools, process steps, or by staffing for technical support, maintenance, administration, and scheduling. And while not a capacity constraint, providers also reported the need for work to align with their facility or program’s mission, further constraining a given provider’s practical accessibility. 

• Persistent gap between prototyping and production: Existing infrastructure is strongest in design, experimentation, and prototyping but is less equipped for process development and scale-up. Survey responses indicated that process development and scale-up, as well as assembly and advanced packaging, were the most frequently reported unmet needs. 

• Continued demand for external capabilities: Over the next three years, about 70% of respondents expected external facilities to be important to their development needs, and 60% anticipated three or more engagements if relevant prototyping, testing, or manufacturing services were accessible.  

Recommendations 

Based on SRI’s overall findings, QED-C offers the following recommendations to strengthen the U.S. quantum infrastructure landscape.  

1. Develop and maintain a comprehensive quantum infrastructure directory to improve the discoverability of available capabilities: Create and maintain a regularly updated national directory that allows prospective users to identify and compare relevant capabilities, services, costs, turnaround times, access requirements, and points of contact. 

2. Standardize facility-access agreements and streamline processes to remove accessibility barriers: Develop common agreement provisions, clearer access pathways, and target timelines for project review, contracting, and onboarding to reduce the administrative burden of working with federally supported facilities. 

3. Expand flexible quantum fabrication and process-development capacity to address current and near-term industry needs: Invest in facilities, staff, and operations that can support repeatable fabrication, small-batch production, process stabilization, yield improvement, packaging integration, and eventual transfer to high-volume commercial manufacturing. 

4. Expand access to and standardize test infrastructure and characterization methods and data to enhance performance confidence and meet testing needs: Strengthen access to facilities that can test, characterize, and validate quantum components and systems under quantum-relevant conditions. Consistent measurement methods, test conditions, and reporting practices would improve confidence in performance data, facilitate comparisons, and reduce duplicative testing. 

5. Use government demand and investment to support early market formation, supply chain development, and quantum infrastructure: Use prototype purchases, demonstrations, advance purchase commitments, and cost-shared investments to reduce demand uncertainty, accelerate technology maturation, and give quantum system and component developers greater confidence when making production and supply chain investments. Government procurement can also support demonstrations in real-world environments and generate demand for external fabrication, packaging, assembly, testing, and validation services, increasing utilization of existing infrastructure and strengthening the case for further capacity investment. 

Together, these recommendations would build on existing U.S. quantum capabilities while making the infrastructure landscape more visible, accessible, coordinated, and responsive to the needs of quantum technology developers. 

Directory of Federally Funded Quantum Infrastructure  

This directory catalogs the profiles of 30 infrastructure providers and is available to logged in QED-C Members. Click the button below to access.