Table 1 Summary of comparisons between Qiskit and PennyLane. Qiskit is more concise when using quantum gates and circuits, whereas PennyLane offers greater clarity
From: Advantages of two quantum programming platforms in quantum computing and quantum chemistry
Comparison Point | Qiskit | PennyLane |
|---|---|---|
Quantum Circuits | Treats circuits as objects combined using “compose.” | Uses “wires” for qubits, represented by functions |
Gate Usage | More concise, e.g., “h” for the Hadamard gate | Clearer naming, e.g., Hadamard() for the Hadamard gate |
Measurement Methods | Specifies the output during creation, offering more flexibility in design | Returns measurements via functions, such as probabilities and expected values |
Environment setting | Often encounter version and dependency problems | Smoother with a few basic libraries |
Tutorials | It may have a steeper learning curve for beginners | The gentler learning curve for those with some quantum knowledge |
Visualization | Integrates with Jupyter, a beginner-friendly platform | Focused on quantum machine learning, not as intuitive as Qiskit |
Real Devices | IBM superconducting computers open to users for free with a beginner-friendly GUI | Utilizes quantum computers from several providers and the resources of users |
Case Study: Half Adder | More intuitive result representation | Uses PauliZ prediction, requires familiarity with PauliZ |
Case Study: Machine Learning | Built-in functions, easy to implement | Detailed user-defined functions suitable for research |