Both Superconducting and Ion-Trap are leading quantum architectures common in the current landscape of the quantum computing field, each with distinct characteristics and operational constraints. Understanding and measuring the underlying \underline{quantumness} of these devices is essential for assessing their readiness for practical applications and guiding future progress and research. Building on earlier work (Meirom, Mor and Weinstein Arxiv 2505.12441), we utilize a benchmarking strategy applicable for comparing these two architectures by measuring "quantumness" directly on optimal sub-chips. Distinct from existing metrics, our approach employs rigorous binary fidelity thresholds derived from the classical limits of state transfer. This enables us to definitively establish quantum advantage of a designated sub-region. Here we apply this quality assurance methodology to platforms from both technologies. This comparison provides a protocol-based evaluation of quantumness advantage, revealing not only the strengths and weaknesses of each tested chip and its sub-chips but also offering a common language for their assessment. By abstracting away technical differences in the final result, we demonstrate a benchmarking strategy that bridges the gap between disparate quantum-circuit technologies, enabling fair performance comparisons and establishing a critical foundation for evaluating future claims of quantum advantage. This work was made possible by policies of two companies who enable independent and objective assessment on their quantum computers and sub-chips. In the name of science, we encourage other companies to emulate the independent qubit availability and the fair pricing which allow researchers to preform such assessments.