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
- In MiMo Code, the best entry is MiMo V2.6 Flash (Reasoning), 38th of 83 entries on the Geospatial Agent Index, at 71.4.
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
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
| Model | Developer | Geospatial Agent Index: every model in MiMo Code |
|---|---|---|
| Gemini 3.8 Flash (low), Terminus-2 | 72 | |
| Kimi K2.7 Code (Reasoning), Terminus-2 | Moonshot AI | 72 |
| GLM-5.2 (max), Terminus-2 | Z.ai | 72 |
| GPT-5.6 Luna (high), Codex | OpenAI | 72 |
| MiMo V2.6 Flash (Reasoning), MiMo Code | Xiaomi | 71 |
| GPT-6 Luna (high), Codex | OpenAI | 71 |
| Claude Sonnet 5.5 (medium), Claude Code | Anthropic | 71 |
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
Data table: Earth-Bench V2
| Model | Developer | Earth-Bench V2 |
|---|---|---|
| DeepSeek V4 Pro (max), Terminus-2 | DeepSeek | 69 |
| MiMo V2.6 Flash (Reasoning), MiMo Code | Xiaomi | 68 |
| DeepSeek V4 Pro (high), Terminus-2 | DeepSeek | 68 |
| Claude Sonnet 5.5 (xhigh), Claude Code | Anthropic | 68 |
| Claude Haiku 5.5 (xhigh), Claude Code | Anthropic | 68 |
| Claude Sonnet 5 (high), Claude Code | Anthropic | 68 |
| MiniMax M3 (Reasoning), MiniMax Code | MiniMax | 68 |
GeoBenchX
higher is better
Data table: GeoBenchX
| Model | Developer | GeoBenchX |
|---|---|---|
| MiMo V2.6 Flash (Reasoning), MiMo Code | Xiaomi | 64 |
| GLM-5.3 (low), Terminus-2 | Z.ai | 64 |
| Kimi K2.6 (Reasoning), Terminus-2 | Moonshot AI | 64 |
| Kimi K3 (Reasoning), Terminus-2 | Moonshot AI | 64 |
| Kimi K2.6 (Reasoning), Kimi Code | Moonshot AI | 64 |
| Kimi K2.7 Code (Reasoning), Kimi Code | Moonshot AI | 64 |
| Gemma 4 26B A4B (Reasoning), Terminus-2 | 63 |
GS-QA2
higher is better
Data table: GS-QA2
| Model | Developer | GS-QA2 |
|---|---|---|
| GLM-5.2 (max), Claude Code | Z.ai | 83 |
| GLM-5.3 (max), Terminus-2 | Z.ai | 83 |
| Kimi K2.7 Code (Reasoning), Terminus-2 | Moonshot AI | 82 |
| MiMo V2.6 Flash (Reasoning), MiMo Code | Xiaomi | 82 |
| Claude Haiku 5.5 (xhigh), Claude Code | Anthropic | 81 |
| GLM-5.3 (max), Claude Code | Z.ai | 81 |
| GPT-5.6 Luna (high), Codex | OpenAI | 81 |
GeoAgentBench
higher is better
Data table: GeoAgentBench
| Model | Developer | GeoAgentBench |
|---|---|---|
| GLM-5.2 (Non-reasoning), Terminus-2 | Z.ai | 92 |
| GLM-5.3 (low), Terminus-2 | Z.ai | 92 |
| Kimi K2.7 Code (Reasoning), Terminus-2 | Moonshot AI | 92 |
| DeepSeek V4 Flash (high), Codex | DeepSeek | 92 |
| Claude Haiku 5.5 (low), Claude Code | Anthropic | 92 |
| GPT-6 Luna (low), Codex | OpenAI | 92 |
| MiMo V2.6 Flash (Reasoning), MiMo Code | Xiaomi | 92 |
GeoAnalystBench
higher is better
Data table: GeoAnalystBench
| Model | Developer | GeoAnalystBench |
|---|---|---|
| DeepSeek V4.1 Flash (max), Codex | DeepSeek | 88 |
| MiMo V2.6 Flash (Reasoning), MiMo Code | Xiaomi | 84 |
| GLM-5.3-Flash (max), Terminus-2 | Z.ai | 84 |
| GLM-5.3 (max), Terminus-2 | Z.ai | 84 |
| Claude Haiku 5.5 (high), Claude Code | Anthropic | 84 |
| Kimi K2.6 (Reasoning), Terminus-2 | Moonshot AI | 79 |
| MiniMax M3 (Reasoning), MiniMax Code | MiniMax | 79 |
OGD4All
higher is better
Data table: OGD4All
| Model | Developer | OGD4All |
|---|---|---|
| Claude Haiku 4.5 (Reasoning), Claude Code | Anthropic | 95 |
| MiniMax M3 (Reasoning), MiniMax Code | MiniMax | 94 |
| Step 5 Preview (Reasoning), Terminus-2 | StepFun | 94 |
| Nemotron 3 Ultra (high), Terminus-2 | NVIDIA | 92 |
| Nemotron 3.5 Super VL 120B (Reasoning), Terminus-2 | NVIDIA | 91 |
| MiMo V2.6 Flash (Reasoning), MiMo Code | Xiaomi | 91 |
| Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B (Reasoning), Terminus-2 | NVIDIA | 90 |
GeoNatureAgent
higher is better
Data table: GeoNatureAgent
| Model | Developer | GeoNatureAgent |
|---|---|---|
| MiMo V2.6 Flash (Reasoning), MiMo Code | Xiaomi | 100 |
| MiniMax M3.1 Flash (max), Terminus-2 | MiniMax | 100 |
| Mistral Large 4 (high), Terminus-2 | Mistral AI | 100 |
| Muse Glimmer 30B (high), Terminus-2 | Meta | 100 |
| Qwen 3.8 27B (xhigh), Terminus-2 | Alibaba (Qwen) | 100 |
| DeepSeek V4.1 Flash (max), Claude Code | DeepSeek | 100 |
| GLM-5.3-Flash (max), Claude Code | Z.ai | 100 |
MultiGlobeQA
higher is better
Data table: MultiGlobeQA
| Model | Developer | MultiGlobeQA |
|---|---|---|
| Claude Haiku 5.5 (low), Claude Code | Anthropic | 72 |
| Nemotron 3 Ultra (high), Terminus-2 | NVIDIA | 72 |
| Mistral Large 4 (high), Terminus-2 | Mistral AI | 71 |
| Claude Haiku 4.5 (Reasoning), Claude Code | Anthropic | 70 |
| MiMo V2.6 Flash (Reasoning), MiMo Code | Xiaomi | 68 |
| Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B (Reasoning), Terminus-2 | NVIDIA | 68 |
| DeepSeek V4 Flash (high), Claude Code | DeepSeek | 67 |
GeoAgentEval
higher is better
Data table: GeoAgentEval
| Model | Developer | GeoAgentEval |
|---|---|---|
| MiMo V2.6 Flash (Reasoning), MiMo Code | Xiaomi | 96 |
| GLM-5.3-Flash (max), Claude Code | Z.ai | 96 |
| Kimi K3 (Reasoning), Kimi Code | Moonshot AI | 96 |
| Claude Sonnet 5.5 (medium), Claude Code | Anthropic | 96 |
| Claude Haiku 5.5 (max), Claude Code | Anthropic | 96 |
| Claude Opus 5 (high), Claude Code | Anthropic | 96 |
| Mistral Large 4 (high), Terminus-2 | Mistral AI | 92 |
Cost
Cost per task
Average cost per agent task (USD) · Lower is better
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
| Model | Developer | Cost per task |
|---|---|---|
| GLM-4.7-Flash (Reasoning), Terminus-2 | Z.ai | $0.037 |
| Claude Sonnet 5.5 (low), Claude Code | Anthropic | $0.043 |
| GPT-6.1 Sol (medium), Codex | OpenAI | $0.046 |
| Claude Sonnet 5.5 (medium), Claude Code | Anthropic | $0.046 |
| MiMo V2.6 Flash (Reasoning), MiMo Code | Xiaomi | $0.047 |
| GLM-5.3-Flash (low), Terminus-2 | Z.ai | $0.048 |
| Claude Sonnet 5.5 (high), Claude Code | Anthropic | $0.055 |
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
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
| Model | Geospatial Agent Index | Cost per task (USD) | On the Pareto line |
|---|---|---|---|
| MiMo V2.6 Flash (Reasoning), MiMo Code | 71 | $0.047 | No |
| GPT-6 Luna (high), Codex | 71 | $0.0040 | Yes |
| GPT-5.6 Luna (high), Codex | 72 | $0.016 | Yes |
| GLM-5.2 (max), Terminus-2 | 72 | $0.32 | No |
| Kimi K2.7 Code (Reasoning), Terminus-2 | 72 | $0.11 | Yes |
| Gemini 3.8 Flash (low), Terminus-2 | 72 | $0.11 | Yes |
| Claude Sonnet 5.5 (medium), Claude Code | 71 | $0.046 | No |
Time
Time per task
Average minutes per agent task, at 100 output tokens/s · Lower is better
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
| Model | Developer | Time per task (at 100 output tokens/s) |
|---|---|---|
| DeepSeek V4 Pro (max), Terminus-2 | DeepSeek | 4.9 min |
| Claude Opus 5.5 (max), Claude Code | Anthropic | 5.3 min |
| MiMo V2.6 Flash (Reasoning), MiMo Code | Xiaomi | 5.3 min |
| DeepSeek V4 Flash (high), Claude Code | DeepSeek | 5.4 min |
| GLM-4.7-Flash (Reasoning), Terminus-2 | Z.ai | 5.4 min |
| Gemma 4 26B A4B (Reasoning), Terminus-2 | 5.6 min | |
| DeepSeek V4 Flash (max), Terminus-2 | DeepSeek | 5.7 min |
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
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
| Model | Geospatial Agent Index | Time per task (minutes) | On the Pareto line |
|---|---|---|---|
| MiMo V2.6 Flash (Reasoning), MiMo Code | 71 | 5.3 min | No |
| GPT-6 Luna (high), Codex | 71 | 0.7 min | Yes |
| GPT-5.6 Luna (high), Codex | 72 | 1.4 min | Yes |
| GLM-5.2 (max), Terminus-2 | 72 | 6.1 min | No |
| Kimi K2.7 Code (Reasoning), Terminus-2 | 72 | 4.0 min | No |
| Gemini 3.8 Flash (low), Terminus-2 | 72 | 1.9 min | Yes |
| Claude Sonnet 5.5 (medium), Claude Code | 71 | 0.4 min | Yes |
Every benchmark
Score by benchmark
Share answered correctly, 0 to 100 · Darker is better; hatched: provisional, evaluation not finished
Data table: Score by benchmark
| Model | Status | Earth-Bench V2 | GeoBenchX | GS-QA2 | GeoAgentBench | GeoAnalystBench | OGD4All | GeoNatureAgent | MultiGlobeQA | GeoAgentEval |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MiMo V2.6 Flash (Reasoning), MiMo Code | Ranked | 68 | 64 | 82 | 92 | 84 | 91 | 100 | 68 | 96 |
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.
