Table 4.
Characterization of iSWAP, 
, and CNOT gates showing QPT fidelities (
) and output state populations (
) for the 
input. The 
gate shows the largest hardware fidelity drop (
), while the CNOT gate exhibits the smallest (
). All three gates show comparable 
degradation on hardware (
).
| Gate | Process fidelity 
|
 |
State preparation 
|
 |
||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Simulator (%) | Hardware (%) | (HW Drop) (%) | Simulator (%) | Hardware (%) | (HW Drop) (%) | |
| iSWAP (This study) | 97.32 | 89.72 | 7.60 | 100.00 | 93.53 | 6.47 |
 (This study) |
98.02 | 87.65 | 10.37 | 100.00 | 92.44 | 7.56 |
| CNOT 55 | 97.89 | 93.02 | 4.87 | 100.00 | 92.40 | 7.60 |