Code Comparison
===============

Engineering trade-offs between the leading QEC codes for superconducting qubits.

.. list-table::
   :widths: 30 70
   :header-rows: 0

   * - **Surface Code**
     - :math:`\\sim 10^2\\text{--}10^3+` physical qubits per logical qubit. High
                    threshold :math:`p_{\\mathrm{th}} \\approx 1\\%`. Compatible with 2D
                    nearest-neighbor planar layouts. Most widely adopted.
   * - **Color Code**
     - :math:`\\sim 10^2\\text{--}10^3+` physical qubits per logical qubit. Supports
                    more transversal logical gates but requires more complex routing and
                    connectivity.
   * - **Bacon-Shor Code**
     - Grid of physical qubits per logical qubit. Requires fewer stabilizer
                    measurements, reducing overhead and making implementation easier.
   * - **LDPC Codes**
     - Lower qubit overhead than surface codes. Requires non-local connectivity, which
                    is harder for current planar chip architectures.
   * - **GKP / Cat Codes**
     - \(1\) oscillator mode can encode \(1\) logical qubit. Highly hardware-efficient
                    but sensitive to energy decay and photon loss in bosonic cavities.