Mapping the Quantum Ecosystems: How Are Economies Positioning Themselves for Innovation Success

Quantum technologies are among the most complex and promising innovations of our time. Their advancement relies not only on breakthrough science, but also on the capacity of countries, institutions, and companies to collaborate across borders, sectors, and disciplines, bringing together the expertise and resources needed to turn innovation into market-ready solutions.

No country or region alone is in the lead – this is not a race between China and the US. Nor is quantum a development that will elevate one country to “supremacy” or “dominance”: cloaking fields of technology development in the terminology of military strategy rather risks making us less capable of understanding what is going on. For the economic and strategic benefits to be captured, countries and regions need to build structures of collaboration that allow researchers and companies to tap into frontier developments and share the costs of complex knowledge generation.

An important way to measure the quantum competitiveness of countries is to benchmark the profile and strength of their collaborative structures. Using the ECIPE Quantum Database, this study analyses over 18,400 bilateral quantum partnerships involving more than 4,100 institutions across over 110 countries between 2018 and 2024. These partnerships encompass universities, research institutes, government agencies, startups, and large firms.

Based on the findings these collaboration patterns reveal, we go a step further to not only map the interactions between different players but also identify a scheme of four quantum archetypes that help show where countries stand in the global quantum ecosystem. One dimension of this scheme reflects the level of industry involvement in quantum collaborations relative to a country’s GDP, serving as a proxy for commercial focus and economic prioritisation. The other captures how well-connected a country is internationally through direct quantum partnerships (see Figure a).

Figure a: Quantum collaboration archetypesThe archetypes divide the global quantum ecosystem into four distinct categories. The first includes leading countries such as the US, UK, Canada, and Finland, which are classified as Global Innovation Hubs. These countries typically have a highly connected and commercially mature quantum ecosystem, characterised by strong international partnerships and dense industrial collaboration.

The second category includes countries like China, Italy, and India, which are classified as Research Networkers due to their integration into global scientific networks but weaker commercialisation efforts. China is a partial exception, sitting near the edge of the “Global Innovation Hubs” quadrant, close to the US on both dimensions. With more visible industrial collaboration, or if some existing partnerships come to the public attention, it could firmly move into the top-right quadrant.

The third category, Regional Commercial Leaders, includes countries such as Israel, the Netherlands, and Ireland. These ecosystems exhibit high levels of commercial involvement relative to their economic size. They often have a targeted national strategy or dynamic startup environments. While they may not yet be deeply embedded in the global quantum network, they excel at translating research into practical applications.

The fourth category, Emerging Ecosystems, includes countries such as the UAE, Chile, Belgium, and Turkey. These countries show limited international connectivity and lower levels of industry engagement. Many are in the early stages of building quantum capabilities and may face structural challenges such as low R&D intensity, skills gaps, or fragmented funding landscapes.

This study also makes key observations about quantum technology development that should inform governments that aspire to quantum success:

• Quantum is inherently collaborative: Quantum technologies require a diverse range of capabilities – from physics, computer science and various engineering disciplines; including specialised applications such as cryogenics – making it inherently difficult for any single actor or country to advance in isolation. In this context, collaboration is not optional; it is a structural necessity.
• Global collaboration is high, but depth and openness vary: The EU leads in collaboration volume, followed by China and the US. However, countries differ greatly in the nature of their collaborations, whether mostly through academia, government, or industry, as well as in how internationally open their networks are.
• Industry engagement signals ecosystem maturity: Countries with a higher share of industry-involving quantum collaborations – such as the UK, the US, Canada, and Finland, among others – tend to have more commercially advanced quantum ecosystems. These collaborations often serve as a proxy for the readiness to turn research into real-world applications.
• Network roles shape global influence: The US is the most central player in the quantum collaboration network, serving both as a hub (high number of partnerships) and a broker (connecting otherwise unlinked countries). China, while highly connected, is more inward-focused and less integrated into the international quantum collaboration scene than the US. However, China’s partnerships are more specialised, with strong bilateral ties focused on a few countries such as Australia, Canada, and Finland. Within Europe, Germany and the UK occupy strong positions in the global network.
• University spinouts are key bridges from academia to market: University-originated startups attract a significant share of funding, accounting for nearly 60 per cent of all private investment in quantum startups. Institutions like the University of Bristol, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), and the University of Science and Technology (USTC) of China have been particularly successful in producing these high-potential spinouts.
• Sectoral strengths influence focus: Countries have patterns of national specialisation in quantum applications that align with their industrial strengths. For example, France excels in aerospace-related quantum partnerships, Germany and Japan in automotive, and Taiwan and the Netherlands in technology hardware.

Quantum success depends on building interconnected, open, and specialised ecosystems. To stay competitive, countries should foster quantum ecosystems that encourage industry participation, cross-country collaboration, and that build on their national strengths. Ultimately, this study argues that collaboration is not just a facilitator of quantum innovation – it is its foundation. Countries that embrace this reality and develop interconnected ecosystems are more likely to lead in the next wave of technological breakthroughs.