The real line in the sand probably varies from individual to individual, so I would not expect just one answer. However, as someone who does a great deal with simulations, I would draw the line like this:
In a simulation, you have all of the information required to know the final outcome. It may not be in a convenient form. You may need to run it through a few trillion transistors to get it into a readable form, but no new information is generated in the simulation process itself. You're merely distilling value out of existing information. The only times the results of simulation "surprise" you, giving the appearance of new information is when the inputs to the simulation contained information you had not fully processed.
By contrast, I see an experiment as something which has the potential to reveal new information that you did not have. The information that defines the result has not been captured already. There is typically a physical component here, in that not all of the outcome of the experiment has been put into a form which is information.
From this focus on "information," I would say it depends on the quantum program you run. If the quantum program you run is explicitly written such that the quantum effects are unimportant for the final output, I would call it a simulation. However, if the quantum program is written such that the quantum effects in the implementation affect the output in a meaningful way, it may be an experiment.
The line I choose to draw is highly related to the difference between syntax and semantics. If the result can be arrived at purely through the syntax of the information and processes which manipulate that information, I tend to think of it as a simulation. If the result can only be derived from the semantics of the inputs and the process, such as the particular behaviors of this particular device under test, I call it more of an experiment.