Score your quantum use case.
A screening gate, fifteen plain-language questions, and the three published MERIQ verdicts: a score out of 100, a maturity level capped by your weakest criterion, and a production horizon. Scoring runs entirely in your browser — nothing is sent anywhere unless you choose to submit at the end.
Public edition This scorer is a simplified public edition of MERIQ, built on the anchors published in our methodology article. The proprietary layer — the per-criterion sub-question catalogue, the calibration weights and the benchmark library of past assessments — is deliberately not part of this tool.
How this works
MERIQ scores a quantum computing use case in three steps. First a screening gate: three pass/fail questions that decide whether the candidate is a quantum use case at all — a use case that fails the gate is parked, not scored. Second, five criteria — business value, expected quantum advantage, data basis, technical feasibility and resource requirements — each scored 1–5 against fixed, published anchors. Third, three derived verdicts: the equal-weighted score out of 100, a maturity level that can never exceed the lowest single criterion, and a production horizon that names what blocks the use case and whether that blocker has a date.
Each criterion below asks three short questions and suggests a score from your answers. The suggestion is a heuristic — if you disagree, open the anchor picker and place your case on the published ladder directly. The full derivation, the worked flagship example and the honest caveats are in the methodology article; the calibrated engagement-grade version of this assessment is part of our strategy advisory.
Step 0 · Screening gate
All three must pass. Not every hard problem is a quantum problem — and scoring a non-candidate would only launder it into a low number.
Answer the three gate questions to unlock scoring.
Anchors, bands, the weakest-link cap and both reference scorecards are published in Scoring quantum use cases: five criteria and a weakest-link rule. Equal weights are the published illustration — engagement work applies calibrated weights from the proprietary layer. Benchmark and platform-characterisation evidence follows DIN SPEC 91480:2024-11, the standard for benchmarking gate-based quantum computers.
Reading your result
The three verdicts answer three different questions. The score says how strong the case is with all dimensions considered — straight fours land at 80, straight threes at 60. The maturity level starts from the score band but can never exceed your lowest criterion: one blocked dimension makes a use case immature, no matter what the average says. The production horizon is the forward-looking verdict — in 2026 no use case with a proven advantage is pilot-ready, so the discriminating question is not which case is mature today but which blocker has a date. A hardware-gated blocker is datable against vendor roadmaps; a research-gated blocker — no proven advantage, no loading route — is not. And whether a roadmap milestone has actually been reached is a measurement question: a standardised benchmark tracked across hardware generations is evidence, an announcement is not — the point of DIN SPEC 91480, the fourth of the four independently built instruments our methodology article’s convergence section compares.
For calibration: our flagship use case — the business-risk model behind the risk demo and RISQ — scores 80/100 but is capped at Level 3 by its resource requirement, with a datable early-fault-tolerant horizon. The instructive contrast, a generic quantum-machine-learning fraud classifier, scores 48/100 and is capped at Level 1 by its data basis, with an undatable, research-gated horizon.
Submit your scorecard (optional)
We are building a library of industrially scored quantum use cases. If you want your assessment in it, submit it here. The scorer is fully usable without submitting — nothing on this page leaves your browser until you press the button.
Data, licence & privacy
- Nothing leaves your browser until you submit. Scoring runs entirely client-side. This page sets no cookies, runs no analytics and does no tracking. If you never press “Submit to the library”, no data is transmitted.
- Controller. JoS QUANTUM GmbH, Platz der Einheit 2, c/o TechQuartier, 60327 Frankfurt am Main, Germany — info@jos-quantum.de. Full details in the site notice.
- What we process on submission. Your scorecard (gate answers, questionnaire answers, scores, overrides, derived verdicts), the use-case fields you fill in (title, industry, question, scaling axis, context) and — only if you provide them — your e-mail address and company name. Alongside these we store two technical values for abuse prevention and diagnostics: the page your submission came from, and your browser’s user-agent string, truncated. We do not store your IP address in our database.
- Purposes and legal basis. Storing and analysing submissions, building a curated, anonymised library of quantum use cases, and publication in curated or aggregated form (for example in the MERIQ whitepaper). If you tick the contact box, additionally: contacting you about your assessment. Legal basis for all of this is your consent, Art. 6(1)(a) GDPR — given by ticking the boxes above, withdrawable at any time with effect for the future.
- The licence you grant. The required checkbox grants JoS QUANTUM the non-exclusive right quoted there: we may store, analyse, anonymise and publish submissions in curated form; whether and what we publish is our per-entry decision; personal data (name, e-mail, company) is never published.
- Processors and recipients. Submissions are received and stored on Google Cloud (Cloud Run and Firestore) in region europe-west3 (Frankfurt am Main), under Google’s Cloud Data Processing Addendum (Art. 28 GDPR). Google’s infrastructure logs record the requesting IP address for up to 30 days for operation and abuse prevention; we do not copy it into our database.
- Retention. We keep raw submissions until you withdraw consent or we delete them; anonymised and aggregated versions no longer constitute personal data and may be retained.
- Your rights. Access, rectification, erasure, restriction, portability and objection (Art. 15–21 GDPR); withdrawal of consent at any time via info@jos-quantum.de; complaint to a supervisory authority — for us, the Hessian Commissioner for Data Protection and Freedom of Information.
- Third-party loads on this site. Like every page here, this one loads fonts and icons from content-delivery networks (Google Fonts, cdnjs); see the site-wide privacy notice.
Honest caveats
- This is the simplified public edition. Three questions per criterion is a coarse instrument. The engagement version behind our strategy advisory works from a proprietary sub-question catalogue, calibrated weights and a benchmark library of past assessments — none of which are in this page’s code.
- The suggestion is a heuristic. Fifteen radio buttons compress judgment into integers. If your evidence says otherwise, override with the published anchors — they are the actual instrument; the questions only walk you to them.
- Self-assessment flatters. The published contrast case scores generic QML fraud detection at 48/100; honest answers here can land nearby but not identically. Where your answers and the published scorecards diverge, trust the anchors, not the questionnaire.
- Resource anchors have a time derivative. The machine classes and the roadmap dates behind the horizon (2029–2033 for early fault-tolerance) are 2026 statements, and horizons are envelopes, not forecasts.
- Equal weights are the published illustration. Engagement work applies calibrated weights; your 80 and our 80 need not mean the same thing.