That Rigetti filing sits inside a broader federal push that is bigger than one company. In January, a House Science Committee hearing charter said the Fiscal Year 2026 budget request includes about $340 million for quantum information science at DOE, $231 million at NSF, $60 million at NIST, and $36 million at NASA (House Science Committee hearing charter). That is a real policy commitment, and it spans agencies that do not usually coordinate for the thrill of it.

The charter also lays out why Congress and the administration keep leaning in. It says China has already demonstrated secure quantum communications capabilities and is operating a quantum communications network, launched a large-scale quantum initiative in 2016 aimed at surpassing the United States by 2030, and under its 14th Five-Year Plan announced plans to invest an estimated $15.3 billion in quantum research and development (House Science Committee hearing charter). Those are the charter’s claims, not a lab report. Still, the strategic message is hard to miss.

Federal spending on quantum is not just about cheering on a technology. It is also about building the plumbing around it. In February, NSF announced up to $100 million for a National Quantum and Nanotechnology Infrastructure program that will support up to 16 sites over five years, with open access for students, researchers, and industry (NSF). The point is to widen the base, not bless one ticker.

The same goes for NSF’s earlier work. The hearing charter says NSF has awarded over $245 million through the Quantum Leap Challenge Institutes initiative since 2020, and in 2024 selected 11 pilot projects to bridge gaps between current quantum capabilities and the tools needed for practical applications (House Science Committee hearing charter). That is ecosystem-building. Good for the field, not automatically good for shareholders.

Defense spending adds another layer. The charter says the FY2026 NDAA directs DOD to develop a Quantum Readiness Strategy and assess whether its cryptographic systems can adopt quantum-resistant algorithms and practices (House Science Committee hearing charter). That creates a durable policy reason to keep funding security work. It does not say which public company will capture the money.

Rigetti is the cleanest case study because the government deal is specific enough to read, and odd enough to matter. The company said the Commerce Department letter of intent is only a first step, with the parties agreeing to negotiate in good faith toward definitive transaction agreements (Rigetti 8-K, SEC). So this is not a closed deal. It is a framework for one.

The economics matter just as much as the optics. Rigetti said the department will be issued common stock equal in value to the award, and the implied issuance price will be based on the lowest reported closing price on three reference dates, each cut by 15% (Rigetti 8-K, SEC). That is a bargain for the buyer and dilution for everyone already holding the stock. The phrase “government support” sounds gentle until the cap table gets involved.

This is why the Rigetti deal is useful to investors. It shows that public money can support a company’s research plan while still being a bad deal for existing shareholders if the terms are rich on the government side. Bulls can point to validation and capital. Skeptics can point to dilution, and both are right.

D-Wave’s disclosure is less dramatic and more slippery. On May 26, D-Wave said its subsidiary Quantum Circuits, LLC, received second-year funding for the SQFab project from NORDTECH, one of eight hubs in the U.S. Microelectronics Commons program (D-Wave 8-K, SEC). The project is one of four programs selected through NORDTECH, which the filing describes as a regional consortium of nonprofit semiconductor R&D facilities, government labs, defense companies, academic institutions, and technology manufacturing organizations around New York State (D-Wave 8-K, SEC).

The catch is that D-Wave did not disclose the award size. That makes the announcement hard to translate into financial impact. It may be meaningful. It may be modest. Without the number, investors are left with a technology signal and not much else.

The filing was also furnished rather than filed for Exchange Act purposes (D-Wave 8-K, SEC). For investors, that matters because it usually means the company is not treating the disclosure as the kind of legally weighty statement that carries the same liabilities as a filed report. In plain English, it is still a real announcement, but not one to over-read.

IBM is the obvious contrast. The company says it invests in research to lead the next era of computing in two transformative models, AI and quantum computing, and says it reached pivotal milestones toward delivering quantum advantage in 2026 and fault tolerance by 2029 (IBM 2025 Annual Report, SEC). Those are company goals, not delivered milestones, and that distinction matters. Plenty of roadmaps have a habit of looking graceful right up until the bill arrives.

The difference is that IBM does not need quantum to justify its existence. In 2025, IBM reported $67.5 billion in revenue, $10.6 billion in net income from continuing operations, and $14.7 billion in free cash flow (IBM 2025 Annual Report, SEC). That is the kind of base that lets a company fund research without turning every quarterly update into a referendum on survival.

IBM also generated $13.2 billion in cash from operations and returned $6.3 billion in dividends to shareholders in 2025 (IBM 2025 Annual Report, SEC). If quantum takes longer than expected, IBM still has a business. If quantum breaks out, IBM still has a business. That is a much less thrilling setup, which is often another way of saying safer.

So are quantum computing stocks a good investment? For some investors, yes, but not all quantum stocks belong in the same basket. The government’s role should push you toward a more careful distinction, not a more enthusiastic one.

A direct award recipient like Rigetti offers the clearest upside if the technology progresses and the funding turns into a broader commercial story. It also carries the most obvious financing risk, because the government’s participation can come with dilution and terms that are unfriendly to existing holders (Rigetti 8-K, SEC). That is the tradeoff. The same structure that keeps the company moving can leave shareholders doing more of the heavy lifting.

An ecosystem name like D-Wave sits in the middle. Government work can validate the technology and keep the company connected to important programs, but when the award size is undisclosed, the market has to guess at materiality (D-Wave 8-K, SEC). Guessing is not analysis, even if the stock chart sometimes makes it feel that way.

IBM is the lower-drama route. It gives investors quantum exposure through a company with scale, cash flow, dividends, and access to capital markets, while quantum remains one piece of a much larger enterprise (IBM 2025 Annual Report, SEC). The upside may be less explosive, but the chance of a nasty surprise is also smaller.

The next quarter or two should be watched for a few specific things. First, whether the Rigetti-Commerce transaction moves from letter of intent to definitive terms, and whether the share mechanics stay as disclosed (Rigetti 8-K, SEC). Second, whether D-Wave’s NORDTECH funding turns out to be financially meaningful once the company gives investors a number (D-Wave 8-K, SEC).

The bigger test is commercial, not political. If a quantum company starts showing revenue growth that stands on more than government contracts, the story changes. Until then, federal funding should be read as a sign that the technology matters to policymakers, not as a shortcut around normal stock-picking discipline.