A Founder’s Perspective: The Quantum and Photonics Industry’s Growth

The photonics sector’s $4.91 billion funding in March 2026 is a stark reminder that capital is no longer the primary concern. For years, my job as a founder in this space was primarily one of evangelism. Meetings with investors were tutorials on quantum mechanics, exercises in convincing smart people that the fundamental physics was not science fiction. The conversations were about T2 times, gate fidelities, and the long, uncertain road to fault tolerance. Today, that has fundamentally changed. The real question is no longer about the physics; it is whether we have the people and, more importantly, the organisational discipline to turn this immense investment into something that works outside a temperature-controlled, vibration-damped laboratory.

My job has shifted from that of a science advocate to a systems builder. The conversations that now dominate my days, and the problems that keep me awake at night, are about thermal management, second-sourcing for optical components, supply chain logistics, and the reliability of firmware. We have moved from the “what if” stage to the “how to” stage. The challenge is no longer proving that a quantum effect can be demonstrated, but proving it can be packaged, shipped, and operated reliably by a customer. This transition from a science project to an engineering discipline is the single most important, and most underestimated, challenge facing our industry. The capital is a vote of confidence, but it is also a ticking clock. It is an instruction to stop experimenting and start building.

What do the market numbers actually mean for a founder?

For a founder, these market projections are not abstract figures for a presentation slide; they are the tangible representation of pressure. They set the quarterly expectations of our investors and fuel the aggressive hiring plans of our competitors. The projected 26.9% compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of the quantum photonics market is not a gentle upward curve. It is a demand to more than double our capabilities, output, and team size every three years, or risk becoming irrelevant. Growing from an estimated $540 million market in 2025 to nearly $5.85 billion by 2035 means the entire industry is in a state of controlled urgency. The starting pistol has been fired.

This growth rate fundamentally alters the conversations we have with our boards. The questions are no longer about scientific milestones alone. They are about market share, customer acquisition cost, and gross margins. Investors see a $5.85 billion prize and want to know our precise plan for capturing a defensible piece of it. This forces a discipline that can feel alien to a research-led organisation. It requires us to think not just about what is possible in the lab, but what is sellable, supportable, and profitable in the field. Every decision, from a research project to a new hire, is implicitly weighed against that 26.9% CAGR. Are we moving fast enough? Are we building the right things to compete in a market that will be ten times larger in a decade?

The projection that the U.S. market alone will reach nearly $1,762.28 million by 2035 is particularly significant. It tells us where the commercial centre of gravity is likely to be. This is not just about the absolute size of the market; it is about the concentration of talent, capital, and customers. For any company operating outside the United States, this figure is a strategic challenge. It forces us to ask difficult questions. Do we need a U.S. office to access that talent pool? How do we compete for engineers and commercial leaders against companies embedded in the Silicon Valley ecosystem? How do we sell to U.S. customers in defence, finance, and pharmaceuticals? This single number shapes global strategy, dictating where we must build a presence and fight for talent if we are to be a serious player. As founders, we have to operate as if these projections are real, because our investors and competitors certainly do.

Where is the capital really going?

The capital is not being distributed evenly. It is concentrating, with increasing velocity, in companies that look and feel less like university spin-outs and more like disciplined, execution-focused technology businesses. The money is following commercial leadership and a clear, articulated path to market. It is a flight to quality, where quality is now defined not just by the calibre of the science, but by the strength of the operational and commercial teams.

We can see this pattern clearly in the market signals. Look at Photonic Inc. Securing $200 million USD in funding and achieving a $2 billion USD post-money valuation is not an investment in a research project. A valuation of that magnitude is a bet on a company that can build, sell, and support products at scale. It reflects a belief from investors that the core technology is sufficiently de-risked and that the primary challenge is now one of engineering and market execution. That $200 million is a war chest not just for R&D, but for building out the decidedly less glamorous, but critically important, functions: a global sales team, a robust supply chain, and a customer support organisation. It is capital allocated for scaling.

Consider Monarch Quantum. Surpassing $100 million in capital and contracts within six months of its founding is a powerful indicator. The key word is “contracts”. This is not just patient venture capital hoping for a breakthrough in a decade. This is revenue, or at least firm commitments from customers who have a specific problem they believe Monarch Quantum can solve. It signifies a shift from technology-push to market-pull. The company is not just building interesting technology and looking for a problem; it is co-developing a solution with a paying customer. This is a profound change. It forces a product-centric mindset and grounds the entire organisation in the reality of customer needs.

The trend is perhaps most starkly illustrated by EigenQ. The appointment of Rika Nakazawa as Chief Growth Officer is a deliberate statement of intent. A CGO is a role focused on one thing: scaling revenue. It is about building the systems, processes, and teams required for rapid commercial expansion. This is followed by the decision to go public via a $3 billion SPAC merger with Silicon Valley Acquisition Corp. Becoming a public company is the final step in this maturation process. It subjects the company to the unforgiving scrutiny of the public markets, the discipline of quarterly earnings reports, and the need for predictable, forecastable growth. The conversations in EigenQ’s boardroom are no longer just about physics; they are about guidance, earnings per share, and shareholder value. These three examples—Photonic Inc., Monarch Quantum, and EigenQ—are not isolated events. They are a clear blueprint for what investors now demand: a credible plan to transition from a lab to a market leader, led by a team that knows how to execute.

Has the work itself changed?

Yes, profoundly. The nature of the work that defines success in our industry has undergone a fundamental transformation. For the first two decades of quantum computing, the core task was manipulating the quantum phenomena themselves—coaxing a qubit into a superposition, entangling it with another, and preserving its delicate state for as long as possible. That work remains essential, but it is no longer sufficient. The core work of the industry today is building and shipping reliable systems.

This shift is evident in the problems that leading companies are now focused on solving. When a company like Honeywell Quantum Solutions, with its deep industrial heritage, talks publicly about applications in warehouse automation, it signals a change in the definition of success. The goal is not to demonstrate a quantum algorithm in isolation; it is to solve a complex logistical optimisation problem for a real-world warehouse, where the solution must integrate with existing software, operate reliably 24/7, and provide a quantifiable return on investment. The quantum processor is just one component in a much larger, classical engineering system. The value is measured not in gate fidelity, but in the improved efficiency of a supply chain.

Similarly, when a company like Qti Srl writes about submarine networks, it is entering a world where reliability is paramount. A system deployed on the seabed must operate flawlessly for years without maintenance. This is the domain of military-grade and aerospace engineering. It demands a relentless focus on failure mode analysis, redundancy, and robust design. The engineering challenges of packaging, power, and thermal management in such an environment are immense, and they have very little to do with the underlying quantum mechanics. The work is about building a system that can withstand the harsh realities of the physical world.

This new focus requires a completely different set of skills. We are now bottlenecked by expertise in fields that were once peripheral to our industry. Thermal dynamics is a prime example. We are trying to control quantum states at temperatures colder than deep space, while connecting them to control electronics operating at room temperature just centimetres away. This creates enormous challenges in managing heat loads, vibration, and material contraction. This is a problem for a brilliant mechanical or cryogenic engineer, not a theoretical physicist.

Material science is another critical frontier. The coherence of a qubit can be destroyed by microscopic impurities in the silicon it is fabricated on, or by noise from the materials used in the packaging. We need people with deep expertise in materials, drawn from the semiconductor or advanced manufacturing sectors, to solve these problems. And as we move from building one-off prototypes to producing hundreds or thousands of units, we face the challenge of high-volume manufacturing. How do we ensure that the thousandth device has the same performance as the first? This is a question of process control, yield optimisation, and statistical analysis—the core disciplines that enabled the semiconductor revolution. The work has changed from proving a principle to producing a product.

What is the single biggest constraint on this growth?

It is talent. The capital is here, the market demand is beginning to materialise, and the scientific foundation is strong. But we do not have enough people who know how to build complex, reliable hardware systems at scale. Our industry was born out of academic physics departments, and our talent pipeline reflects that legacy. We have a relative surplus of PhDs in quantum information theory and a severe, growth-limiting shortage of experienced hardware, software, and systems engineers.

The core of the problem is that the people we need most are not “quantum people”. They are senior mechanical engineers from the aerospace industry, RF engineers from telecoms, firmware engineers from the embedded systems world, and manufacturing process engineers from semiconductor fabrication plants. Attracting this talent is incredibly difficult for several reasons.

First, there is the perception of career risk. An experienced engineer with a stable, well-paid job at a large, established technology company looks at a quantum startup and sees instability. They ask themselves: “Will this company even exist in five years? If this specific quantum technology fails, will the skills I gain be transferable, or will this be a dead end for my career?” We, as an industry, have not done a good enough job of answering these questions. We have to actively de-risk the career path for these individuals.

Second, there is a significant cultural and linguistic mismatch. An engineer from a disciplined, process-driven industry expects clear requirements, detailed specifications, and structured project management. They are used to a world of design reviews, quality assurance protocols, and predictable timelines. The culture of a research-led quantum company, which often thrives on ambiguity, rapid iteration, and academic-style exploration, can feel chaotic and frustrating. Physicists and engineers speak different languages. A physicist is trained to explore what is possible; an engineer is trained to reliably deliver what is required within a set of constraints. Bridging this cultural gap is one of the hardest parts of building a quantum company today.

To overcome this constraint, we must fundamentally change how we recruit and build our organisations. We must de-risk the career path by offering compensation packages that are competitive with big tech, not just with other startups. We need to build internal structures that experienced engineers expect: clear career ladders, professional management, and opportunities for development that don’t require them to become quantum physicists. We need to frame the work in a way that appeals to them. The challenge is not “help us build a quantum computer.” It is “help us solve the hardest thermal management problem in the world,” or “help us design a control system with nanosecond precision.” We need to hire experienced engineering leaders who have shipped products before, who can act as translators between the worlds of science and engineering, and who can build a culture that values both rigorous research and disciplined execution.

The future belongs to the teams that can build things that work, reliably, every single time. The defining skill of the next decade in this industry will not be quantum mechanics; it will be systems engineering. As founders, our biggest challenge is no longer about physics. It is about organisational design. We must create a new generation of “quantum engineers” by building integrated teams where the deep knowledge of our research scientists is fused with the hard-won, practical experience of industrial engineers. This requires creating a shared language, a shared culture, and a shared respect for both disciplines. The company that succeeds will not necessarily be the one with the best qubit. It will be the one that becomes the best in the world at recruiting, integrating, and retaining the engineering talent required to turn a scientific marvel into a working product. The race is now an engineering race, and most of the industry is still at the starting line.

Sources

• Monarch Quantum Surpasses $100M in Capital and Contracts with …
• Quantum Photonics Industry worth $3.3 billion by 2030
• Quantum & Photonics Startup Report, with Nardo Manaloto (LIVE)
• Michael Baczyk’s Post – LinkedIn
• Quantum Photonics
• Quantum Photonics Market Size, Share & Growth Report, 2032
• Photonics: The Backbone of Scalable Quantum Technologies
• Quantum Photonics Market: Industry Analysis and Forecast 2030
• Introduction to quantum photonics – Pyroistech
• Optica ONLINE MEETING: Quantum Computing: What the Photonics …