To be called a quantum computer, I would expect they should, but last I checked, all claims of quantum supremacy appear to be highly disputed.
I mean calling a quantum computer a machine that uses qbits to compute, completely ignores the reason why we are interested in them. You don't see millions of dollars poured into gear computers.
But why? A very slow silicion based computer is still a silicon based computer. It doesn't matter how fast, same applies for quantum computers. There is no such definition as IF (> 1000 qubits) THEN "quantum computer" ELSE "nothing".
The quantum computer is able to do certain tasks in fewer clock cycles but since we measure time in seconds a regular 3.2Ghz 8 core CPU today would perform 5,000x the clock cycles per second.
If quantum is going to scale and work is still TBD but saying they are slower in seconds isn't a fair way to grade. They could be 1000x faster in clock cycles and still 5x slower in seconds today.
Link on IBM Quantum https://indico.cern.ch/event/719844/contributions/3019718/at...