Quantum Portfolio Optimization: A

Comprehensive Proposal for Next-

Generation Financial Computing
This proposal presents a groundbreaking approach to portfolio management using
quantum computing technologies to revolutionize how financial institutions optimize
investment portfolios. By leveraging quantum algorithms on advanced GPU simulation
platforms, we aim to solve complex portfolio optimization problems that are
computationally challenging for classical computers, potentially unlocking superior
investment strategies while managing risk more effectively.

Financial Problem Definition: The Portfolio Optimization Challenge

Portfolio optimization represents one of the most fundamental challenges in modern

finance, dating back to Harry Markowitz's pioneering work in the 1950s. The core problem
involves selecting the optimal mix of financial assets to maximize expected returns while
minimizing investment risk[1][2]. This balancing act becomes exponentially complex as the
number of available assets increases, creating a computational bottleneck that limits the
sophistication of investment strategies.

The Markowitz Mean-Variance Framework

The mathematical foundation of our approach builds upon the Markowitz mean-variance
model, which formalizes portfolio optimization as a quadratic optimization problem [1][2]. In
simple terms, imagine you have a collection of different stocks, bonds, or other
investments, each with its own expected return and risk level. The challenge is
determining how much money to invest in each asset to create the best possible
portfolio.

n
The portfolio return can be expressed as R p = ∑ x i r i, where x i represents the weight (or
i=1

percentage) of investment in asset i , and r i represents the expected return of that

 n n
asset . The portfolio risk, measured as variance, is given by σ =
[2] 2
p ∑ ∑ Cov(i , j)⋅ x i x j,
i=1 j=1

where Cov (i, j) represents the covariance between assets i and j [2].

The optimization problem seeks to minimize portfolio risk for a given target return, or
alternatively, maximize return for a given risk tolerance. However, real-world constraints
significantly complicate this problem. These constraints include cardinality limitations
(restricting the number of assets in the portfolio), transaction costs, sector diversification
requirements, and regulatory compliance measures [3][4]. As the number of assets and
constraints grows, classical computational methods struggle to find optimal solutions
within reasonable time frames.

Quantum Solution Architecture

Algorithm Selection and Rationale

Our quantum approach employs three complementary algorithms, each suited to

different aspects of the portfolio optimization problem. The Quantum Approximate
Optimization Algorithm (QAOA) serves as our primary method due to its proven
effectiveness in solving combinatorial optimization problems relevant to portfolio
selection[5][6]. The Variational Quantum Eigensolver (VQE) provides an alternative
approach particularly suitable for problems requiring high precision in risk calculations [7].
Finally, quantum annealing techniques offer a pathway for handling large-scale problems
with complex constraint structures[8][9].

QAOA operates by preparing quantum states that encode potential portfolio solutions and
then applying a series of quantum operations to search for optimal combinations [5]. The
algorithm alternates between two types of operations: one that explores the solution
space (the "mixing" operation) and another that evaluates the quality of potential
solutions (the "cost" operation). This quantum interference allows the algorithm to
efficiently explore multiple portfolio combinations simultaneously, potentially finding
better solutions than classical methods.

VQE takes a different approach by encoding the portfolio optimization problem as finding
the minimum eigenvalue of a quantum Hamiltonian [7]. This method is particularly
valuable when precise risk calculations are essential, as it can capture subtle correlations
between assets that classical methods might miss. The algorithm iteratively refines
quantum states to minimize the expected value of the cost function, providing highly
accurate solutions for smaller problem instances.

QUBO Formulation and Quantum Mapping

The transformation of portfolio optimization into a Quadratic Unconstrained Binary

Optimization (QUBO) problem represents a crucial step that makes the problem suitable
for quantum computation[1][10]. In the QUBO framework, investment decisions are encoded
as binary variables, where each variable represents whether to include a particular asset
in the portfolio at a specific investment level.

The QUBO formulation begins by discretizing continuous investment weights into binary
representations[1]. For example, if we want to allow investment levels from 0% to 10% in
increments of 0.1%, we would need approximately 100 binary variables per asset. Each
binary variable x i ,k represents the k -th bit of the binary representation for asset i . The
K
investment weight is then reconstructed as ∑ pk 2k −1 xi , k, where p K=1 /2 K sets the
k =1

granularity level . [1]

The complete QUBO formulation incorporates both the risk minimization objective and
return constraint as follows[1]:

[ ]
2
θ ⋅∑i , j Cov(i, j) ( ∑k=1 p k 2 x i , k )( ∑k =1 p k 2 x j ,k ) − M ⋅ ( ∑ i ( ∑ k=1 p k 2 x i ,k ) ⋅r i ) − R
K k− 1 K k −1 K k−1

This formulation combines the portfolio variance (first term) with a penalty for deviating
from the target return R (second term). The parameters θ and M control the relative
importance of risk minimization versus return achievement, requiring careful tuning for
optimal performance[1].

The mapping to quantum hardware involves encoding these binary variables as quantum
bits (qubits), where each qubit can exist in a superposition of 0 and 1 states. This
quantum superposition allows the algorithm to explore multiple portfolio combinations
simultaneously, providing the potential for exponential speedup over classical methods.

Simulation Environment Architecture

36-Qubit System Design

Our proposed quantum simulation leverages a 36-qubit system to handle portfolios
containing approximately 6-8 assets with high precision investment levels, or up to 36
assets with binary inclusion decisions[11]. The choice of 36 qubits represents a practical
balance between computational feasibility and problem complexity, allowing meaningful
portfolio optimization while remaining within current simulation capabilities.

The simulation architecture centers on NVIDIA GPU-based quantum simulators,

specifically utilizing cuQuantum, qsim, and Qiskit Aer with GPU acceleration [12][13][14]. These
simulators provide the computational power necessary to handle the 236 dimensional
quantum state space, requiring approximately 1 terabyte of memory for state vector
storage[11]. The massive parallelism offered by modern GPUs makes them ideally suited
for quantum circuit simulation, as the linear algebra operations required for quantum
state evolution can be efficiently distributed across thousands of GPU cores.

Resource Requirements and Performance Estimates

The memory requirements for our 36-qubit simulation scale exponentially with qubit
count, demanding substantial computational resources [11]. Using double precision (16-
byte) complex numbers, the quantum state vector requires 236 × 16=1.1 terabytes of
memory. This necessitates a multi-GPU setup with high-bandwidth memory interconnects
to distribute the state vector across multiple devices [14].

Performance benchmarks from existing quantum simulation studies provide insight into
expected runtimes[12][13]. For 36-qubit quantum circuits with moderate depth (100-200
gates), we anticipate simulation times ranging from several minutes to hours depending
on circuit complexity and optimization level. The cuQuantum SDK has demonstrated
significant performance improvements, with 8-GPU configurations achieving 4.6x to 7.0x
speedups compared to single-GPU implementations for similar circuit sizes [12].

The computational complexity scales as O(2n ) for state vector simulation, where n is the
number of qubits[13]. This exponential scaling represents the fundamental challenge in
quantum simulation but also highlights the potential advantage of actual quantum
hardware. Circuit depth affects runtime linearly, as each quantum gate operation
requires a matrix-vector multiplication with the state vector [13].

Parallelization opportunities exist at multiple levels of the simulation stack [14]. GPU
architectures naturally parallelize matrix operations across thousands of cores, while
multi-GPU setups can distribute quantum state chunks across devices using cache
blocking techniques[14]. For very large simulations, multi-node parallelization using MPI
(Message Passing Interface) can further scale computational capacity across cluster
environments[11].

Bottlenecks and Optimization Strategies

The primary bottleneck in large-scale quantum simulation stems from memory bandwidth
limitations rather than computational throughput [13]. As quantum states grow beyond GPU
memory capacity, data movement between host RAM and GPU memory becomes the
limiting factor. Advanced techniques like state vector chunking and gate fusion help
mitigate these limitations by reducing memory access patterns and combining multiple
quantum operations into single computational kernels [12][14].

Gate fusion optimization automatically combines consecutive quantum gates into larger
unitary operations, reducing the number of matrix-vector multiplications required [12]. This
technique proves particularly effective for quantum circuits with many single-qubit gates,
which are common in QAOA implementations. The optimal fusion size depends on GPU
architecture, with newer devices supporting larger fusion operations due to increased
register and cache capacity.

Classical Method Comparison

Mixed-Integer Programming Approaches

Classical portfolio optimization traditionally relies on Mixed-Integer Programming (MIP)

solvers, which have been refined over decades to handle complex constraint structures [3].
Modern MIP solvers like Gurobi can efficiently process large datasets and detect patterns
that inform investment decisions, making them formidable competitors to quantum
approaches[3]. These classical methods excel at handling practical constraints such as
transaction costs, cardinality limitations, and regulatory requirements that are
challenging to encode in quantum algorithms.

MIP technology supports discrete decision variables naturally, accommodating real-world

scenarios where investors must choose specific allocation levels or decide whether to
include particular assets[3]. The ability to rapidly test millions of "what-if" scenarios gives
classical MIP solvers significant advantages in production environments where time-
compressed decision making is essential[3]. However, the computational complexity of
MIP approaches scales poorly with problem size, particularly when dealing with non-
convex constraints or high-dimensional correlation structures.

Metaheuristic Algorithms

Genetic algorithms and other metaheuristic approaches provide alternative classical

methods for portfolio optimization[4]. Multi-population genetic algorithms (MPGA)
decompose large optimization problems into multiple smaller populations that evolve
independently, periodically exchanging promising solutions [4]. This approach has
demonstrated superior performance compared to traditional methods like tabu search,
simulated annealing, and particle swarm optimization for cardinality-constrained portfolio
problems[4].

The key advantage of metaheuristic methods lies in their ability to handle non-convex
optimization landscapes and complex constraint structures without requiring
mathematical reformulation[4]. However, these methods typically require extensive
computational time to converge to high-quality solutions and provide no guarantee of
finding global optima. The stochastic nature of metaheuristic algorithms also means that
solution quality can vary significantly between runs, creating challenges for production
deployment.

Performance and Scalability Analysis

Classical optimization methods currently demonstrate superior performance for most

practical portfolio optimization problems, particularly those involving fewer than 100
assets[3][4]. The mature software ecosystem, extensive optimization libraries, and decades
of algorithmic refinement give classical approaches significant practical advantages.
However, as problem complexity increases—either through larger asset universes, more
sophisticated constraint structures, or real-time optimization requirements—classical
methods begin to show computational limitations.

Quantum algorithms show theoretical promise for exponential speedup in specific

problem structures, particularly those involving global optimization across highly
correlated search spaces[1][6]. The quantum advantage becomes more pronounced as
problem sizes increase beyond the capabilities of classical computers to exhaustively
explore the solution space. However, current quantum hardware limitations and
simulation overhead mean that classical methods remain superior for most near-term
applications.
Quantum Approach Benchmarking

Gate-Based Quantum Computing (QAOA vs VQE)

QAOA and VQE represent the two dominant gate-based quantum approaches for portfolio
optimization, each with distinct advantages and limitations [6][7]. QAOA excels at
combinatorial optimization problems where the goal is selecting discrete asset allocations
from a finite set of possibilities[6]. The algorithm's alternating structure between problem-
specific and mixing operations makes it particularly suitable for exploring complex
solution landscapes with multiple local optima.

Performance benchmarking reveals that QAOA effectiveness depends heavily on circuit

depth (number of alternating layers) and parameter optimization strategies [6]. Shallow
QAOA circuits with 1-2 layers often provide reasonable approximations for simple
portfolio problems, while deeper circuits may be necessary for problems with complex
constraint structures. However, increased circuit depth also amplifies the impact of
quantum hardware noise, creating a trade-off between solution quality and practical
implementability[6].

VQE approaches portfolio optimization by encoding the problem as a quantum

Hamiltonian and iteratively minimizing its ground state energy [7]. This method
demonstrates superior performance for problems requiring high precision in risk
calculations, as it can capture subtle quantum correlations between asset returns. The
flexibility of VQE ansatz circuits allows customization for specific problem structures,
potentially achieving better approximation ratios than fixed-structure QAOA circuits [7].

Quantum Annealing Approaches

D-Wave quantum annealers provide a fundamentally different approach to portfolio

optimization through direct implementation of QUBO problems [8][9]. These devices excel at
handling large-scale optimization problems with complex constraint structures, as
demonstrated in real-world applications involving S&P 500 portfolios [8]. The hybrid
classical-quantum solvers offered by D-Wave systems combine quantum annealing with
classical preprocessing and postprocessing to achieve high-quality solutions [9].

Quantum annealing shows particular promise for portfolio problems with investment
bands (minimum and maximum allocation constraints) and sector diversification
requirements[8]. The natural encoding of these constraints as penalty terms in the QUBO
formulation allows quantum annealers to handle problem complexities that challenge
gate-based quantum computers. Real-world testing has demonstrated solutions
consistent with classical global optima, validating the practical applicability of quantum
annealing for portfolio optimization[9].

However, quantum annealing approaches face limitations in problem formulation

flexibility and parameter tuning requirements[9]. The need to carefully balance penalty
coefficients for different constraints can require extensive classical preprocessing,
potentially limiting the quantum advantage. Additionally, the discrete nature of quantum
annealing solutions may miss fine-grained optimization opportunities that continuous
classical methods can exploit.

Analog Quantum Computing Methods

Emerging analog quantum computing approaches offer potential advantages for

continuous optimization problems that arise in portfolio management. These methods
directly encode optimization problems into the dynamics of quantum many-body
systems, potentially avoiding the discretization requirements of QUBO formulations.
However, analog quantum approaches for portfolio optimization remain largely
theoretical, with limited experimental validation or practical implementations currently
available.

The potential advantages of analog methods include natural handling of continuous

variables and reduced sensitivity to quantum gate errors that plague digital quantum
circuits. However, the lack of error correction and limited programmability of current
analog quantum devices restrict their practical applicability for complex portfolio
optimization problems.

Business Value and Strategic Implications

Competitive Advantages and Market Opportunities

The implementation of quantum portfolio optimization technology offers financial

institutions several strategic advantages that could reshape competitive dynamics in
asset management. First, the ability to process larger and more complex optimization
problems enables institutions to consider broader asset universes and more sophisticated
investment strategies[1][3]. This expanded capability could unlock previously inaccessible
alpha generation opportunities, particularly in alternative investment spaces where
traditional optimization methods struggle with high-dimensional correlation structures.

The speed advantages of quantum algorithms, once mature, could enable real-time
portfolio rebalancing in response to market conditions [1]. This capability would be
particularly valuable for high-frequency trading strategies, dynamic hedging applications,
and risk management systems that require rapid response to market volatility. Financial
institutions that successfully deploy quantum optimization could gain significant
advantages in market-making, proprietary trading, and client portfolio management
services.

Advanced risk modeling capabilities represent another significant value proposition [7].
Quantum algorithms' ability to capture complex correlations and higher-order moments
in asset return distributions could lead to more accurate risk assessments and better-
calibrated portfolio constructions. This enhanced risk management could translate
directly into improved risk-adjusted returns and reduced regulatory capital requirements
under advanced risk measurement frameworks.

Revenue Potential and Cost Considerations

The potential revenue impact of quantum portfolio optimization spans multiple business
lines within financial institutions. Asset management firms could justify higher fees for
quantum-optimized investment strategies, particularly if these approaches demonstrate
superior risk-adjusted returns over extended periods. Institutional clients increasingly
seek differentiated investment approaches, and quantum optimization could provide a
compelling narrative for premium pricing strategies.

Operational cost reductions may emerge from more efficient portfolio construction
processes and reduced need for manual intervention in complex optimization problems [3].
However, these benefits must be weighed against substantial technology infrastructure
investments, including quantum computing hardware, specialized software development,
and highly skilled quantum algorithm researchers and engineers.

The quantum computing talent market remains extremely competitive, with quantum
algorithm specialists commanding premium compensation packages. Financial
institutions must consider these human capital costs alongside technology investments
when evaluating the business case for quantum portfolio optimization initiatives.
Risk Assessment and Mitigation Strategies

Technical Risks and Hardware Limitations

Current quantum hardware suffers from significant technical limitations that pose risks to
practical portfolio optimization implementations. Quantum error rates remain orders of
magnitude higher than classical computing systems, with gate fidelities typically ranging
from 99% to 99.9% depending on the specific quantum platform [6][7]. For portfolio
optimization algorithms requiring hundreds or thousands of quantum gates, these error
rates can severely degrade solution quality.

Quantum decoherence represents another fundamental challenge, as quantum states

lose their superposition properties over time scales much shorter than algorithm
execution times. Current quantum computers require algorithm completion within
microseconds to milliseconds, limiting the complexity of optimization problems that can
be addressed. While error correction techniques are being developed, they require
substantial overhead in terms of additional qubits and gate operations.

The limited connectivity of current quantum hardware also constrains algorithm

implementation. Many quantum devices feature linear or limited two-dimensional qubit
connectivity patterns, requiring additional SWAP operations to implement algorithms
designed for all-to-all connectivity. These overhead operations increase circuit depth and
error accumulation, potentially negating quantum advantages for practical problem sizes.

Business and Regulatory Risks

Financial institutions adopting quantum portfolio optimization face regulatory scrutiny

regarding the transparency and explainability of quantum algorithms [9]. Regulators may
require detailed documentation of quantum algorithm decision-making processes, which
can be challenging given the probabilistic nature of quantum computations and the
complexity of quantum state evolution.

Model risk represents another significant concern, as quantum algorithms may exhibit
unexpected behaviors or failure modes that differ fundamentally from classical
optimization approaches. Financial institutions must develop new model validation
frameworks that account for quantum-specific risks, including hardware calibration drift,
quantum gate noise, and algorithm parameter sensitivity.
The nascent state of the quantum computing industry also poses vendor and technology
obsolescence risks. Early quantum hardware investments may become stranded assets
as the technology rapidly evolves, requiring careful consideration of upgrade pathways
and technology roadmaps.

Implementation Roadmap and Recommendations

Near-Term Development Strategy (1-2 Years)

The immediate focus should be on establishing robust quantum simulation capabilities

using classical hardware while developing quantum algorithm expertise [12][11]. This phase
involves building 36-qubit simulation infrastructure using NVIDIA GPU clusters,
implementing QAOA and VQE algorithms for portfolio optimization, and conducting
extensive benchmarking against classical methods using historical market data.

Key technical milestones include achieving reliable 36-qubit simulations with runtime
under one hour for typical portfolio problems, demonstrating solution quality competitive
with classical MIP solvers for problems involving 10-20 assets, and developing automated
parameter tuning systems for quantum algorithm optimization. This phase should also
establish partnerships with quantum computing vendors and research institutions to
maintain access to cutting-edge developments.

Risk management during this phase requires careful validation of quantum algorithm
outputs against known classical solutions, development of quantum-specific testing
frameworks, and establishment of clear performance benchmarks that must be achieved
before advancing to production consideration.

Medium-Term Scaling and Validation (2-5 Years)

The medium-term strategy focuses on transitioning from simulation to early quantum

hardware while scaling problem complexity and demonstrating sustained competitive
advantages[8][7]. This phase involves deploying algorithms on cloud-based quantum
computers from vendors like IBM, Google, and IonQ, while continuing to use quantum
annealers like D-Wave systems for larger-scale problems.

Technical objectives include achieving quantum advantage for specific portfolio

optimization problem classes, particularly those involving 50+ assets with complex
constraint structures that challenge classical methods. This phase should also focus on
developing hybrid quantum-classical algorithms that leverage the strengths of both
computational paradigms[9].

Business validation becomes critical during this phase, requiring demonstration of

measurable improvements in portfolio performance, risk management, or operational
efficiency. Financial institutions should establish controlled experiments comparing
quantum-optimized portfolios against classical benchmarks over multiple market cycles.

Long-Term Strategic Vision (5+ Years)

The long-term vision encompasses fully integrated quantum portfolio optimization

systems capable of handling institutional-scale problems with hundreds of assets and
complex regulatory constraints. This future state assumes significant advances in
quantum error correction, increased qubit counts, and mature quantum software
ecosystems.

Strategic objectives include establishing quantum portfolio optimization as a core

competitive differentiator, developing proprietary quantum algorithms tailored to specific
investment strategies, and potentially offering quantum optimization services to external
clients. This phase may also involve investment in dedicated quantum computing
hardware for time-sensitive applications requiring guaranteed access and performance.

The ultimate success metric involves quantum portfolio optimization becoming a

standard component of institutional investment processes, with measurable impact on
industry performance standards and client outcomes. However, achieving this vision
requires sustained investment, technological breakthrough, and careful risk management
throughout the development process.

This comprehensive roadmap provides a structured approach to quantum portfolio

optimization development while acknowledging the significant technical and business
challenges that must be overcome. Success requires balancing ambitious technological
goals with practical business constraints, ensuring that quantum computing investments
generate tangible value for financial institutions and their clients.

1. https://arxiv.org/html/2410.05932v1
2. https://arxiv.org/html/2410.05932v3

3. https://www.gurobi.com/resources/how-mip-solving-can-transform-portfolio-optimization/

4. https://www.iccs-meeting.org/archive/iccs2018/papers/108600128.pdf

5. https://docs.classiq.io/latest/explore/applications/finance/portfolio_optimization/
portfolio_optimization/

6. https://arxiv.org/abs/2207.10555

7. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-023-45392-w

8. https://www.dwavequantum.com/resources/application/quantum-portfolio-optimization-with-
investment-bands-and-target-volatility/

9. https://scispace.com/papers/a-real-world-test-of-portfolio-optimization-with-quantum-gb3y50s3

10. https://wigner.hu/~koniorczykmatyas/qubo/literature/1811.11538.pdf

11. https://fiqci.github.io/_posts/2025-04-01-LUMI-quantum-simulations-qiskit-aer/

12. https://arxiv.org/pdf/2308.01999.pdf

13. https://ar5iv.labs.arxiv.org/html/2111.02396

14. https://qiskit.github.io/qiskit-aer/howtos/running_gpu.html