Axis Spatial

Search modelsMenu

MiMo Code: geospatial agent results

The command-line coding agent made by Xiaomi. It reads the task, writes and runs code in the sandbox, and passes the results back to the model. An agent is a harness plus a model: this page ranks every model we benchmark in MiMo Code on GIS and Earth observation tasks, and shows how the same model does in other harnesses.

Made by Xiaomi · Version 0.1.16, pinned · 1 model from 1 lab · 1 entry, 1 ranked

Overview

Lowest cost

  1. #1MiMo V2.6 Flash (Reasoning)$0.047

Cost per agent task, at list prices

Fastest

  1. #1MiMo V2.6 Flash (Reasoning)5.3 min (estimated)

Time per agent task, at 100 output tokens/s

Models

Geospatial Agent Index: every model in MiMo Code

Text only, 0 to 100 · Higher is better · one bar per model, at its best ranked reasoning level

Geospatial Agent Index: every model in MiMo CodeScores 0 to 100: Gemini 3.8 Flash (low), Terminus-2: 72; Kimi K2.7 Code (Reasoning), Terminus-2: 72; GLM-5.2 (max), Terminus-2: 72; GPT-5.6 Luna (high), Codex: 72; MiMo V2.6 Flash (Reasoning), MiMo Code: 71; GPT-6 Luna (high), Codex: 71; Claude Sonnet 5.5 (medium), Claude Code: 710255075100Gemini 3.8 Flash (low)Terminus-272Kimi K2.7 Code (Reasoning)Terminus-272GLM-5.2 (max)Terminus-272GPT-5.6 Luna (high)Codex72MiMo V2.6 Flash (Reasoning)MiMo Code71GPT-6 Luna (high)Codex71Claude Sonnet 5.5 (medium)Claude Code71
How to read this chart

Bars. Every entry in MiMo Code with a result, highlighted, and the nearest entries in other harnesses, faded, for context. Provisional: not yet ranked.

Data table: Geospatial Agent Index: every model in MiMo Code
Geospatial Agent Index: every model in MiMo Code
ModelDeveloperGeospatial Agent Index: every model in MiMo Code
Gemini 3.8 Flash (low), Terminus-2Google72
Kimi K2.7 Code (Reasoning), Terminus-2Moonshot AI72
GLM-5.2 (max), Terminus-2Z.ai72
GPT-5.6 Luna (high), CodexOpenAI72
MiMo V2.6 Flash (Reasoning), MiMo CodeXiaomi71
GPT-6 Luna (high), CodexOpenAI71
Claude Sonnet 5.5 (medium), Claude CodeAnthropic71

Same model elsewhere

Not yet: every model in MiMo Code runs only in MiMo Code so far. The Geospatial Agent Index ranks every entry, in every harness.

By evaluation

Earth-Bench V2

higher is better

Earth-Bench V2Scores 0 to 100: DeepSeek V4 Pro (max), Terminus-2: 69; MiMo V2.6 Flash (Reasoning), MiMo Code: 68; DeepSeek V4 Pro (high), Terminus-2: 68; Claude Sonnet 5.5 (xhigh), Claude Code: 68; Claude Haiku 5.5 (xhigh), Claude Code: 68; Claude Sonnet 5 (high), Claude Code: 68; MiniMax M3 (Reasoning), MiniMax Code: 68DeepSeek V4 Pro (max) · Terminus-269MiMo V2.6 Flash (Reasoning) · MiMo Code68DeepSeek V4 Pro (high) · Terminus-268Claude Sonnet 5.5 (xhigh) · Claude Code68Claude Haiku 5.5 (xhigh) · Claude Code68Claude Sonnet 5 (high) · Claude Code68MiniMax M3 (Reasoning) · MiniMax Code68
Data table: Earth-Bench V2

GeoBenchX

higher is better

GeoBenchXScores 0 to 100: MiMo V2.6 Flash (Reasoning), MiMo Code: 64; GLM-5.3 (low), Terminus-2: 64; Kimi K2.6 (Reasoning), Terminus-2: 64; Kimi K3 (Reasoning), Terminus-2: 64; Kimi K2.6 (Reasoning), Kimi Code: 64; Kimi K2.7 Code (Reasoning), Kimi Code: 64; Gemma 4 26B A4B (Reasoning), Terminus-2: 63MiMo V2.6 Flash (Reasoning) · MiMo Code64GLM-5.3 (low) · Terminus-264Kimi K2.6 (Reasoning) · Terminus-264Kimi K3 (Reasoning) · Terminus-264Kimi K2.6 (Reasoning) · Kimi Code64Kimi K2.7 Code (Reasoning) · Kimi Code64Gemma 4 26B A4B (Reasoning) · Terminus-263
Data table: GeoBenchX

GS-QA2

higher is better

GS-QA2Scores 0 to 100: GLM-5.2 (max), Claude Code: 83; GLM-5.3 (max), Terminus-2: 83; Kimi K2.7 Code (Reasoning), Terminus-2: 82; MiMo V2.6 Flash (Reasoning), MiMo Code: 82; Claude Haiku 5.5 (xhigh), Claude Code: 81; GLM-5.3 (max), Claude Code: 81; GPT-5.6 Luna (high), Codex: 81GLM-5.2 (max) · Claude Code83GLM-5.3 (max) · Terminus-283Kimi K2.7 Code (Reasoning) · Terminus-282MiMo V2.6 Flash (Reasoning) · MiMo Code82Claude Haiku 5.5 (xhigh) · Claude Code81GLM-5.3 (max) · Claude Code81GPT-5.6 Luna (high) · Codex81
Data table: GS-QA2

GeoAgentBench

higher is better

GeoAgentBenchScores 0 to 100: GLM-5.2 (Non-reasoning), Terminus-2: 92; GLM-5.3 (low), Terminus-2: 92; Kimi K2.7 Code (Reasoning), Terminus-2: 92; DeepSeek V4 Flash (high), Codex: 92; Claude Haiku 5.5 (low), Claude Code: 92; GPT-6 Luna (low), Codex: 92; MiMo V2.6 Flash (Reasoning), MiMo Code: 92GLM-5.2 (Non-reasoning) · Terminus-292GLM-5.3 (low) · Terminus-292Kimi K2.7 Code (Reasoning) · Terminus-292DeepSeek V4 Flash (high) · Codex92Claude Haiku 5.5 (low) · Claude Code92GPT-6 Luna (low) · Codex92MiMo V2.6 Flash (Reasoning) · MiMo Code92
Data table: GeoAgentBench

GeoAnalystBench

higher is better

GeoAnalystBenchScores 0 to 100: DeepSeek V4.1 Flash (max), Codex: 88; MiMo V2.6 Flash (Reasoning), MiMo Code: 84; GLM-5.3-Flash (max), Terminus-2: 84; GLM-5.3 (max), Terminus-2: 84; Claude Haiku 5.5 (high), Claude Code: 84; Kimi K2.6 (Reasoning), Terminus-2: 79; MiniMax M3 (Reasoning), MiniMax Code: 79DeepSeek V4.1 Flash (max) · Codex88MiMo V2.6 Flash (Reasoning) · MiMo Code84GLM-5.3-Flash (max) · Terminus-284GLM-5.3 (max) · Terminus-284Claude Haiku 5.5 (high) · Claude Code84Kimi K2.6 (Reasoning) · Terminus-279MiniMax M3 (Reasoning) · MiniMax Code79
Data table: GeoAnalystBench

OGD4All

higher is better

OGD4AllScores 0 to 100: Claude Haiku 4.5 (Reasoning), Claude Code: 95; MiniMax M3 (Reasoning), MiniMax Code: 94; Step 5 Preview (Reasoning), Terminus-2: 94; Nemotron 3 Ultra (high), Terminus-2: 92; Nemotron 3.5 Super VL 120B (Reasoning), Terminus-2: 91; MiMo V2.6 Flash (Reasoning), MiMo Code: 91; Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B (Reasoning), Terminus-2: 90Claude Haiku 4.5 (Reasoning) · Claude Code95MiniMax M3 (Reasoning) · MiniMax Code94Step 5 Preview (Reasoning) · Terminus-294Nemotron 3 Ultra (high) · Terminus-292Nemotron 3.5 Super VL 120B (Reasoning) ·Terminus-291MiMo V2.6 Flash (Reasoning) · MiMo Code91Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B (Reasoning) ·Terminus-290
Data table: OGD4All

GeoNatureAgent

higher is better

GeoNatureAgentScores 0 to 100: MiMo V2.6 Flash (Reasoning), MiMo Code: 100; MiniMax M3.1 Flash (max), Terminus-2: 100; Mistral Large 4 (high), Terminus-2: 100; Muse Glimmer 30B (high), Terminus-2: 100; Qwen 3.8 27B (xhigh), Terminus-2: 100; DeepSeek V4.1 Flash (max), Claude Code: 100; GLM-5.3-Flash (max), Claude Code: 100MiMo V2.6 Flash (Reasoning) · MiMo Code100MiniMax M3.1 Flash (max) · Terminus-2100Mistral Large 4 (high) · Terminus-2100Muse Glimmer 30B (high) · Terminus-2100Qwen 3.8 27B (xhigh) · Terminus-2100DeepSeek V4.1 Flash (max) · Claude Code100GLM-5.3-Flash (max) · Claude Code100
Data table: GeoNatureAgent

MultiGlobeQA

higher is better

MultiGlobeQAScores 0 to 100: Claude Haiku 5.5 (low), Claude Code: 72; Nemotron 3 Ultra (high), Terminus-2: 72; Mistral Large 4 (high), Terminus-2: 71; Claude Haiku 4.5 (Reasoning), Claude Code: 70; MiMo V2.6 Flash (Reasoning), MiMo Code: 68; Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B (Reasoning), Terminus-2: 68; DeepSeek V4 Flash (high), Claude Code: 67Claude Haiku 5.5 (low) · Claude Code72Nemotron 3 Ultra (high) · Terminus-272Mistral Large 4 (high) · Terminus-271Claude Haiku 4.5 (Reasoning) · Claude Code70MiMo V2.6 Flash (Reasoning) · MiMo Code68Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B (Reasoning) ·Terminus-268DeepSeek V4 Flash (high) · Claude Code67
Data table: MultiGlobeQA

GeoAgentEval

higher is better

GeoAgentEvalScores 0 to 100: MiMo V2.6 Flash (Reasoning), MiMo Code: 96; GLM-5.3-Flash (max), Claude Code: 96; Kimi K3 (Reasoning), Kimi Code: 96; Claude Sonnet 5.5 (medium), Claude Code: 96; Claude Haiku 5.5 (max), Claude Code: 96; Claude Opus 5 (high), Claude Code: 96; Mistral Large 4 (high), Terminus-2: 92MiMo V2.6 Flash (Reasoning) · MiMo Code96GLM-5.3-Flash (max) · Claude Code96Kimi K3 (Reasoning) · Kimi Code96Claude Sonnet 5.5 (medium) · Claude Code96Claude Haiku 5.5 (max) · Claude Code96Claude Opus 5 (high) · Claude Code96Mistral Large 4 (high) · Terminus-292
Data table: GeoAgentEval

Cost

Cost per task

Average cost per agent task (USD) · Lower is better

Cost per taskCost per task in US dollars: GLM-4.7-Flash (Reasoning), Terminus-2: $0.037; Claude Sonnet 5.5 (low), Claude Code: $0.043; GPT-6.1 Sol (medium), Codex: $0.046; Claude Sonnet 5.5 (medium), Claude Code: $0.046; MiMo V2.6 Flash (Reasoning), MiMo Code: $0.047; GLM-5.3-Flash (low), Terminus-2: $0.048; Claude Sonnet 5.5 (high), Claude Code: $0.055$0$0.015$0.03$0.045$0.06GLM-4.7-Flash (Reasoning)Terminus-2$0.037Claude Sonnet 5.5 (low)Claude Code$0.043GPT-6.1 Sol (medium)Codex$0.046Claude Sonnet 5.5 (medium)Claude Code$0.046MiMo V2.6 Flash (Reasoning)MiMo Code$0.047GLM-5.3-Flash (low)Terminus-2$0.048Claude Sonnet 5.5 (high)Claude Code$0.055
How to read this chart

What cost is measuring. What one attempt at a task would cost if paid token by token at the provider's published API prices, averaged over attempts: ordinary input tokens, input tokens served from the provider's cache at the lower cached price, tokens written to the cache where the provider charges for that, and output tokens (thinking included). Cost assumes each harness uses the model's pay-per-token API, priced at public list rates; sandboxes and our own engineering time are not included. Failed attempts count too.

How to read this chart. Lower is better. Costs are pay-per-token list prices, not any discount or credit a customer might have.

Bars. Every entry in MiMo Code with a result, highlighted, and the nearest entries in other harnesses, faded, for context. Provisional: not yet ranked.

Data table: Cost per task

Geospatial Agent Index vs. cost per task

Geospatial Agent Index, Text only; cost per task (USD) · Higher and further left is better

  • Most attractive quadrant
  • Pareto line
Geospatial Agent Index vs. cost per taskGeospatial Agent Index (0 to 100) against cost per task in US dollars, log scale: MiMo V2.6 Flash (Reasoning), MiMo Code: 71.44, $0.047; GPT-6 Luna (high), Codex: 71.42, $0.0040; GPT-5.6 Luna (high), Codex: 71.7, $0.016; GLM-5.2 (max), Terminus-2: 71.73, $0.32; Kimi K2.7 Code (Reasoning), Terminus-2: 71.81, $0.11; Gemini 3.8 Flash (low), Terminus-2: 71.91, $0.11; Claude Sonnet 5.5 (medium), Claude Code: 70.95, $0.046Most attractive quadrant70.87171.271.471.671.87272.2$0.002$0.005$0.01$0.02$0.05$0.10$0.20$0.50Cost per task (USD, log scale)Geospatial Agent IndexMiMo V2.6 Flash (Reasoning), MiMo CodeGemini 3.8 Flash (low), Terminus-2Kimi K2.7 Code (Reasoning), Terminus-2GPT-5.6 Luna (high), CodexGPT-6 Luna (high), CodexGLM-5.2 (max), Terminus-2Claude Sonnet 5.5 (medium), Claude Code
How to read this chart

Why a log scale. Costs and times differ by a factor of ten or more between models, so equal steps on the axis are equal ratios.

What cost is measuring. What one attempt at a task would cost if paid token by token at the provider's published API prices, averaged over attempts: ordinary input tokens, input tokens served from the provider's cache at the lower cached price, tokens written to the cache where the provider charges for that, and output tokens (thinking included). Cost assumes each harness uses the model's pay-per-token API, priced at public list rates; sandboxes and our own engineering time are not included. Failed attempts count too.

How to read this chart. Each point is one entry. Further left means a lower average cost per task (log scale); higher means a higher Geospatial Agent Index. Both axes fit the models shown, so the score axis does not start at zero. The shaded most attractive quadrant is the top-left quarter of the plot, split at the middle of each axis: a reading aid that moves with the axes when you change the models shown, not a fixed bar. The dotted Pareto line joins the shown models that no cheaper shown model beats on score.

Data table: Geospatial Agent Index vs. cost per task
Geospatial Agent Index vs. cost per task
ModelGeospatial Agent IndexCost per task (USD)On the Pareto line
MiMo V2.6 Flash (Reasoning), MiMo Code71$0.047No
GPT-6 Luna (high), Codex71$0.0040Yes
GPT-5.6 Luna (high), Codex72$0.016Yes
GLM-5.2 (max), Terminus-272$0.32No
Kimi K2.7 Code (Reasoning), Terminus-272$0.11Yes
Gemini 3.8 Flash (low), Terminus-272$0.11Yes
Claude Sonnet 5.5 (medium), Claude Code71$0.046No

Time

Time per task

Average minutes per agent task, at 100 output tokens/s · Lower is better

Time per taskTime per task: DeepSeek V4 Pro (max), Terminus-2: 4.9 min; Claude Opus 5.5 (max), Claude Code: 5.3 min; MiMo V2.6 Flash (Reasoning), MiMo Code: 5.3 min; DeepSeek V4 Flash (high), Claude Code: 5.4 min; GLM-4.7-Flash (Reasoning), Terminus-2: 5.4 min; Gemma 4 26B A4B (Reasoning), Terminus-2: 5.6 min; DeepSeek V4 Flash (max), Terminus-2: 5.7 min01.534.56DeepSeek V4 Pro (max)Terminus-24.9 minClaude Opus 5.5 (max)Claude Code5.3 minMiMo V2.6 Flash (Reasoning)MiMo Code5.3 minDeepSeek V4 Flash (high)Claude Code5.4 minGLM-4.7-Flash (Reasoning)Terminus-25.4 minGemma 4 26B A4B (Reasoning)Terminus-25.6 minDeepSeek V4 Flash (max)Terminus-25.7 min
How to read this chart

What this metric means. Time as if every model wrote 100 output tokens per second: output tokens divided by 100, plus the time the agent's commands took. Serving speed differs between providers and is not ranked.

Bars. Every entry in MiMo Code with a result, highlighted, and the nearest entries in other harnesses, faded, for context. Provisional: not yet ranked.

Data table: Time per task

Geospatial Agent Index vs. time per task

Geospatial Agent Index, Text only; time per task (minutes) · Higher and further left is better

  • Most attractive quadrant
  • Pareto line
Geospatial Agent Index vs. time per taskGeospatial Agent Index (0 to 100) against time per task (minutes), log scale: MiMo V2.6 Flash (Reasoning), MiMo Code: 71.44, 5.3 min; GPT-6 Luna (high), Codex: 71.42, 0.7 min; GPT-5.6 Luna (high), Codex: 71.7, 1.4 min; GLM-5.2 (max), Terminus-2: 71.73, 6.1 min; Kimi K2.7 Code (Reasoning), Terminus-2: 71.81, 4.0 min; Gemini 3.8 Flash (low), Terminus-2: 71.91, 1.9 min; Claude Sonnet 5.5 (medium), Claude Code: 70.95, 0.4 minMost attractive quadrant70.87171.271.471.671.87272.20.2 min0.5 min1 min2 min5 min10 minTime per task (minutes, log scale)Geospatial Agent IndexMiMo V2.6 Flash (Reasoning), MiMo CodeGemini 3.8 Flash (low), Terminus-2GPT-5.6 Luna (high), CodexGPT-6 Luna (high), CodexClaude Sonnet 5.5 (medium), Claude CodeKimi K2.7 Code (Reasoning), Terminus-2GLM-5.2 (max), Terminus-2
How to read this chart

Why a log scale. Costs and times differ by a factor of ten or more between models, so equal steps on the axis are equal ratios.

What this metric means. Time as if every model wrote 100 output tokens per second: output tokens divided by 100, plus the time the agent's commands took. Serving speed differs between providers and is not ranked.

How to read this chart. Each point is one entry. Further left means a lower average time per task (log scale); higher means a higher Geospatial Agent Index. Both axes fit the models shown, so the score axis does not start at zero. The shaded most attractive quadrant is the top-left quarter of the plot, split at the middle of each axis: a reading aid that moves with the axes when you change the models shown, not a fixed bar. The dotted Pareto line joins the shown models that no faster shown model beats on score.

Data table: Geospatial Agent Index vs. time per task
Geospatial Agent Index vs. time per task
ModelGeospatial Agent IndexTime per task (minutes)On the Pareto line
MiMo V2.6 Flash (Reasoning), MiMo Code715.3 minNo
GPT-6 Luna (high), Codex710.7 minYes
GPT-5.6 Luna (high), Codex721.4 minYes
GLM-5.2 (max), Terminus-2726.1 minNo
Kimi K2.7 Code (Reasoning), Terminus-2724.0 minNo
Gemini 3.8 Flash (low), Terminus-2721.9 minYes
Claude Sonnet 5.5 (medium), Claude Code710.4 minYes

Every benchmark

Score by benchmark

Share answered correctly, 0 to 100 · Darker is better; hatched: provisional, evaluation not finished

Data table: Score by benchmark
Every benchmark
ModelStatusEarth-Bench V2GeoBenchXGS-QA2GeoAgentBenchGeoAnalystBenchOGD4AllGeoNatureAgentMultiGlobeQAGeoAgentEval
MiMo V2.6 Flash (Reasoning), MiMo CodeRanked6864829284911006896

About MiMo Code

Made by
Xiaomi
What it is
The command-line coding agent made by Xiaomi. It reads the task, writes and runs code in the sandbox, and passes the results back to the model.
Version
0.1.16, the same pinned build for every run
Models we run in it
1 from Xiaomi
How we run it
The same tasks, limits and checks as every other harness: only the agent program changes. Methodology.

Frequently asked questions

Which models do you benchmark in MiMo Code?
Which model is best in MiMo Code?
MiMo V2.6 Flash (Reasoning), with 71.4 on the Geospatial Agent Index, 38th of 83 entries.
What is the cheapest model in MiMo Code?
MiMo V2.6 Flash (Reasoning), at $0.047 per agent task at list prices.
What is the fastest model in MiMo Code?
MiMo V2.6 Flash (Reasoning), at 5.3 min (estimated) per agent task.
Is MiMo Code better than other harnesses?
We cannot say yet: every model in MiMo Code runs only in MiMo Code so far, so there is no like-for-like comparison. The Geospatial Agent Index ranks every entry, in every harness.
Who makes MiMo Code?
Xiaomi. The command-line coding agent made by Xiaomi. It reads the task, writes and runs code in the sandbox, and passes the results back to the model.
Which version of MiMo Code do you run?
0.1.16, pinned: every run uses the same build.
Are any models in MiMo Code still being benchmarked?
No. Every entry in MiMo Code has finished its benchmark and is ranked.