‘If Technology Isn’t Competitive, “Made in Europe” Won’t Help’
Set Trending Topics as a preferred source on Google.
Anyone waiting for the one quantum computer that will replace every classical machine will be disappointed by Jan Henrik Leisse. The chief executive and co-founder of eleQtron has little time for grand promises, even though his company is among Europe’s best-funded quantum start-ups. The spinoff from the University of Siegen raised a €57 million Series A, led by Schwarz Digits, the I.T. arm behind Lidl and Kaufland, and the EIC Fund. Instead of lasers, eleQtron uses microwaves to control the ions in its quantum computers, and together with the Research Fab Microelectronics Germany, the company is building its own chip production.
Competitors are gearing up, too: The British start-up Universal Quantum, which also relies on ion traps, recently raised a record $100 million Series A. In this interview, Mr. Leisse talks about what quantum computers will actually deliver, where the hype goes too far, why banks should switch to post-quantum cryptography now and whether eleQtron needs U.S. capital for its next round.
What Quantum Computers Will Deliver, and Where the Hype Begins
What will quantum computers actually bring people? Please name the three applications you believe in most, and tell us when they will arrive.
Jan Henrik Leisse: First, materials and chemistry. Quantum computers can simulate highly complex systems such as molecules in a way that is extremely difficult for classical computers. That could become relevant for new materials, catalysts, batteries or chemical processes, for example.
Second, pharmaceuticals and drug development. Here, too, the goal is to better understand molecular interactions and thus make development processes more targeted in the long run.
Third, complex optimization problems, for example in logistics, energy or industrial processes.
I am deliberately cautious about timelines. In the coming years, we will increasingly see hybrid applications in which quantum computers take on individual parts of a problem and classical computers handle the rest. When this will produce a clear commercial advantage for a specific use case, no one can seriously pin down to a particular year today. Many consider the period up to the early 2030s decisive for the transition from experiments to the first economically relevant applications. I think that is realistic.
Where do you see the biggest hype in quantum computing today, the promises that make you roll your eyes?
Jan Henrik Leisse: There is often the idea that at some point “the quantum computer” will arrive and suddenly replace all classical computers. That will not happen. A quantum computer is a specialized tool. For a great many tasks, a classical supercomputer will remain the better machine. I am also skeptical of very precise predictions like: In year X, quantum computing will solve problem Y. We are making enormous progress, but there are still considerable scientific and technical challenges. That we will find a cure for cancer with a quantum computer tomorrow is unfortunately unrealistic. Credibility matters more for our industry right now than the most spectacular promise.
How serious is “harvest now, decrypt later” for banks and government agencies? By when must a European company have switched to post-quantum cryptography?
Jan Henrik Leisse: Very serious, and above all, it is not a problem that begins only on the day a sufficiently powerful quantum computer exists. “Harvest now, decrypt later” means that encrypted data is intercepted and stored today in order to decrypt it later. For information that must remain confidential for 10 or 20 years, the risk therefore begins today. That is why no company should wait for someone to announce the so-called Q-Day. Migrating large I.T. landscapes takes years. Companies should map their cryptographic dependencies today, prioritize them and develop a migration strategy for post-quantum cryptography. For banks, government agencies and operators of critical infrastructure, this is especially urgent. European security agencies are already pushing this migration forward. It is a cybersecurity task that must be started today, regardless of exactly when a cryptographically relevant quantum computer becomes available.
Where do you see the global leaders in quantum computing right now?
Jan Henrik Leisse: There is currently no single global leader. Depending on which metric and which architecture you look at, the answer differs. The United States has clear advantages in capital, large technology companies and the speed at which technologies can be scaled. At the same time, there are very different strong hardware approaches worldwide, from superconducting qubits to ion traps to neutral atoms and photonic systems. Europe is very strong scientifically and technologically, especially in ion traps. The decisive question in the coming years will be whether we can translate this strength into industrial companies and scalable products. That is exactly where the race will be decided.
Microwaves Instead of Lasers
eleQtron controls ions with microwaves instead of lasers. Could you explain for our readers without a physics degree: What is the practical difference?
Jan Henrik Leisse: For our ion-trap quantum computer, we use individual charged atoms, or ions, as qubits. These have to be controlled precisely. Many ion-trap approaches use complex laser systems for this. With our MAGIC technology, we use microwaves to control and steer our qubits. Microwave technology can be miniaturized very well and has been known from classical electronics for decades.
The practical advantage shows up when scaling: When a few qubits are to become very many, we do not need ever more complex optical systems for each additional qubit. Our goal is also to integrate a growing share of this control onto chips. Put simply, our technology allows us to turn a complex physics setup into a scalable architecture.
With the Research Fab Microelectronics Germany (Fraunhofer ENAS and ISIT), you are building scalable chip production. How many quantum chips do you want to produce per year, and starting when?
Jan Henrik Leisse: We are not yet at the point where the number of units per year would be the most meaningful metric. Right now, it is about developing and qualifying the manufacturing processes and transferring our ion-trap architecture from a lab setup into reproducible wafer and chip processes. An important step has already been achieved: Fraunhofer ISIT has produced an ion trap on a glass substrate with integrated micromagnets at wafer level and delivered it to us. Exactly these kinds of manufacturing steps must become reproducible before one can seriously talk about volumes for series production.
Supply Chains and Sovereignty
How dependent are you on non-European suppliers in your supply chain, for example for vacuum technology, electronics or cryogenic components? Are there individual parts where an export restriction would seriously hurt you?
Jan Henrik Leisse: Quantum computers are complex systems with highly specialized components, and of course there are international supply chains. For us, it is crucial to source strategically relevant components from European supply chains.
For some less critical components, we currently also rely on non-European manufacturers. We currently do not see any single non-European component as a structural dependency in our road map, and we are working specifically on European supply chains and alternatives for strategic components.
“Sovereignty” is the ultimate sales pitch right now. Honestly: Do customers buy from you because the technology is better or because it is European?
Jan Henrik Leisse: If technology isn’t competitive, “Made in Europe” won’t help in the long run. Our technology has to be measured by performance, reliability and scalability. That is the entry ticket. The fact that we develop this technology in Europe and can eventually also produce it here is additionally relevant for our current and potential customers, especially where critical infrastructure, sensitive data or long-term technological dependencies are concerned. For me, sovereignty is therefore not a substitute for technological quality. It is an additional aspect of a competitive technology.
New Leadership and the Next Funding Round
Co-founder Christof Wunderlich recently stepped back from day-to-day operations, and you now lead the company together with Michael Johanning. What does this change about the company’s direction, and how do the two of you divide responsibilities?
Jan Henrik Leisse: With his scientific work, Christof Wunderlich created the technological foundation on which eleQtron was built, and he shaped the company decisively for many years. In July 2025, he stepped back from day-to-day operations, but he remains connected to eleQtron and involved as a shareholder. Nothing has changed about our basic direction as a company, especially since Michael Johanning, who comes from Christof Wunderlich’s chair, seamlessly continues the technological groundwork.
What has changed is the company’s phase. We are coming from a founding phase shaped by science and research and are now moving more and more toward industrialization, production and market access.
Michael Johanning and I complement each other very well. As chief technology officer, Michael is responsible in particular for technological development and our hardware road map. My focus as chief executive is more on corporate development, financing, partnerships, customers and organization. We make key strategic decisions together, of course.
How long will the round last, and at what size and when are you planning a Series B? Can you avoid U.S. capital once rounds reach three digits?
Jan Henrik Leisse: The Series A finances the next steps in technology, production and market access. This includes, in particular, a strong cloud offering through which we can work with industrial customers on attractive use cases. For negotiating reasons, we are not publishing a specific statement on our financial runway.
We expect a Series B to be significantly larger than the Series A. We are aligning its start with the next technology and commercialization milestones; it has not yet been decided. We will talk about a specific volume and timing when we start the process. We receive investor inquiries constantly, and we also hold talks outside formal financing rounds.
These inquiries come from all over the world, including the United States. We are talking with international investors. Our goal is a globally successful technology company with a European base. For that, we need a balanced group of shareholders who share this ambition and bring not only capital but also networks, scaling experience and market access. Where an investor comes from is one important criterion among several. Whether we will need U.S. capital cannot be seriously predicted today.
In the United States, some quantum companies are worth tens of billions of dollars on the stock market, despite modest revenue. Is that a bubble, and how much does this valuation environment help or hurt you in Europe?
Jan Henrik Leisse: The valuations are above all a bet on the future. Anyone who measures quantum companies solely by today’s revenue and classic industrial multiples captures their long-term value creation potential only to a limited extent. High valuations reflect expectations of this potential, but they guarantee neither technological nor economic success.
For Europe, interest in the industry can help mobilize capital and attention for an important growth industry. At the same time, expectations and actual progress have to match. Volatile share prices are not a reliable yardstick for that.
We are guided by our long-term vision and concrete progress: How do we improve the performance of our hardware? How do we industrialize our scaling advantages? How reliably do we deliver and operate our systems? How satisfied are our customers? And what economic benefit can users achieve? That is what will show, in the long run, which expectations were justified.
