So IBM introduced a quantum computer capability measure (Quantum Volume) which is more meaningful than counting qubits that aren't comparable. But now this post sounds suspiciously like this company is goodharting[1] the new measure. They mention that there are criticisms of Quantum Volume, but they don't show their results for any other benchmark. I imagine it is way easier to goodhart a single benchmark than several.
TL;DR: Instead of using a single measure, just give all the details on the machine as clear as possible:
> How many qubits do you have? With what coherence times? With what connectivity? What are the 1- and 2-qubit gate fidelities? What depth of circuit can you do? What resources do the standard classical algorithms need to simulate your system? Most importantly: what’s the main drawback of your system, the spec that’s the worst, the one you most need to improve? What prevents you from having a scalable quantum computer right now? And are you going to tell me, or will you make me scour Appendix III.B in your paper, or worse yet, ask one of your competitors?
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goodhart%27s_law