Meta: geospatial agent results
Helps you choose the best Meta model for geospatial work: GIS and Earth observation agent tasks, vision and knowledge, with cost and time.
Overview
Most intelligent
- #1Llama 3.3 70B (Non-reasoning) Open weights20
Geospatial Intelligence Index, Text only
Fastest
Time per agent task, at 100 output tokens/s
- For intelligence, the top Meta models are Llama 3.3 70B (Non-reasoning) (20) on the Geospatial Intelligence Index (Text only).
- For cost, the cheapest per agent task are Llama 3.3 70B (Non-reasoning) ($0.023).
- For speed, the fastest per agent task are Llama 3.3 70B (Non-reasoning) (2.1 min).
- For context window, the largest are Llama 3.3 70B: 24K tokens.
Intelligence
Geospatial Intelligence Index, Text only · Higher is better
Data table: Intelligence
| Model | Developer | Intelligence |
|---|---|---|
| Llama 3.3 70B (Non-reasoning) | Meta | 20 |
Cost per task
USD per agent task · Lower is better
Data table: Cost per task
| Model | Developer | Cost per task |
|---|---|---|
| Llama 3.3 70B (Non-reasoning), Terminus-2 | Meta | $0.023 |
Time per task
Minutes per agent task · Lower is better
Data table: Time per task
| Model | Developer | Time per task (at 100 output tokens/s) |
|---|---|---|
| Llama 3.3 70B (Non-reasoning), Terminus-2 | Meta | 2.1 min |
Models
Llama 3.3 70B
Open weightsText only
24K token context · Released 6 December 2024
$0.29 input · $2.25 output per 1M tokens
Intelligence
Text only
Geospatial Intelligence Index: Text only
Weighted average of agent tasks, guided workflows and geospatial knowledge, 0 to 100 · Higher is better
How to read this chart
What this metric means. A weighted average of group scores, each 0 to 100: Agent tasks 4/6, Guided workflows 1/6, Geospatial knowledge 1/6.
Bars. Every Meta model with a result, highlighted, and the strongest models from other labs, faded, for context. Provisional: not yet ranked.
Data table: Geospatial Intelligence Index: Text only
| Model | Developer | Geospatial Intelligence Index: Text only |
|---|---|---|
| Claude Opus 5.5 (xhigh) | Anthropic | 89 |
| GPT-6.1 Sol (medium) | OpenAI | 86 |
| DeepSeek V4 Pro (max) | DeepSeek | 79 |
| Llama 3.3 70B (Non-reasoning) | Meta | 20 |
Text + vision
No Meta model has a Text + vision score yet: that view also needs Vision agents and Vision results.
Agent tasks
Text only
Geospatial Agent Index: Text only
Equal average of Earth-Bench V2, GeoBenchX and GS-QA2, 0 to 100 · Higher is better
How to read this chart
Bars. Every Meta model with a result, highlighted, and the strongest models from other labs, faded, for context. Provisional: not yet ranked.
Data table: Geospatial Agent Index: Text only
| Model | Developer | Geospatial Agent Index: Text only |
|---|---|---|
| Claude Opus 5.5 (xhigh), Claude Code | Anthropic | 85 |
| GPT-6.1 Sol (xhigh), Codex | OpenAI | 82 |
| GLM-5.3 (max), Claude Code | Z.ai | 73 |
| Llama 3.3 70B (Non-reasoning), Terminus-2 | Meta | 8 |
Text + vision
No Meta model has a Text + vision score yet: that view also needs Vision agents and Vision results.
Earth-Bench V2
Earth observation data analysis · 0 to 100 · Higher is better
Data table: Earth-Bench V2
| Model | Developer | Earth-Bench V2 |
|---|---|---|
| Claude Opus 5.5 (high), Claude Code | Anthropic | 79 |
| GPT-6 Sol (high), Codex | OpenAI | 75 |
| Llama 3.3 70B (Non-reasoning), Terminus-2 | Meta | 9 |
GeoBenchX
Maps, numbers and lists from country and city data; some tasks should be declined · 0 to 100 · Higher is better
Data table: GeoBenchX
| Model | Developer | GeoBenchX |
|---|---|---|
| Claude Opus 5.5 (xhigh), Claude Code | Anthropic | 83 |
| GPT-6.1 Sol (medium), Codex | OpenAI | 79 |
| Llama 3.3 70B (Non-reasoning), Terminus-2 | Meta | 6 |
GS-QA2
Spatial data reasoning over map and elevation data · 0 to 100 · Higher is better
Data table: GS-QA2
| Model | Developer | GS-QA2 |
|---|---|---|
| Claude Opus 5.5 (xhigh), Claude Code | Anthropic | 94 |
| GPT-6.1 Sol (xhigh), Codex | OpenAI | 94 |
| Llama 3.3 70B (Non-reasoning), Terminus-2 | Meta | 10 |
GeoAgentBench
Guided workflows: multi-step spatial execution · 0 to 100 · Higher is better
Data table: GeoAgentBench
| Model | Developer | GeoAgentBench |
|---|---|---|
| Claude Opus 5.5 (high), Claude Code | Anthropic | 100 |
| GPT-6.1 Sol (medium), Codex | OpenAI | 100 |
| Llama 3.3 70B (Non-reasoning), Terminus-2 | Meta | 8 |
GeoAnalystBench
Guided workflows: spatial workflow and code generation · 0 to 100 · Higher is better
Data table: GeoAnalystBench
| Model | Developer | GeoAnalystBench |
|---|---|---|
| DeepSeek V4 Pro (max), Terminus-2 | DeepSeek | 100 |
| GLM-5.2 (high), Terminus-2 | Z.ai | 100 |
| Llama 3.3 70B (Non-reasoning), Terminus-2 | Meta | 0 |
Knowledge
Geospatial knowledge
Questions on geospatial knowledge · 0 to 100 · Higher is better
Data table: Geospatial knowledge
| Model | Developer | Geospatial knowledge |
|---|---|---|
| Claude Sonnet 4.6 (high) | Anthropic | 98 |
| Gemini 3.8 Flash (low) | 94 | |
| Llama 3.3 70B (Non-reasoning) | Meta | 82 |
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 Meta entry with a cost, highlighted, and the top-ranked entries from other labs on the Geospatial Agent Index, faded, for context. Provisional: not yet ranked.
Data table: Cost per task
| Model | Developer | Cost per task |
|---|---|---|
| Llama 3.3 70B (Non-reasoning), Terminus-2 | Meta | $0.023 |
| GPT-6.1 Sol (xhigh), Codex | OpenAI | $0.085 |
| Claude Opus 5.5 (xhigh), Claude Code | Anthropic | $0.25 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Llama 3.3 70B (Non-reasoning), Terminus-2 | 8 | $0.023 | Yes |
| Claude Opus 5.5 (xhigh), Claude Code | 85 | $0.25 | Yes |
| GPT-6.1 Sol (xhigh), Codex | 82 | $0.085 | Yes |
| GLM-5.3 (max), Claude Code | 73 | $0.48 | 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 Meta entry with a cost, highlighted, and the top-ranked entries from other labs on the Geospatial Agent Index, faded, for context. Provisional: not yet ranked.
Data table: Time per task
| Model | Developer | Time per task (at 100 output tokens/s) |
|---|---|---|
| GPT-6.1 Sol (xhigh), Codex | OpenAI | 0.8 min |
| Claude Opus 5.5 (xhigh), Claude Code | Anthropic | 1.4 min |
| Llama 3.3 70B (Non-reasoning), Terminus-2 | Meta | 2.1 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Llama 3.3 70B (Non-reasoning), Terminus-2 | 8 | 2.1 min | No |
| Claude Opus 5.5 (xhigh), Claude Code | 85 | 1.4 min | Yes |
| GPT-6.1 Sol (xhigh), Codex | 82 | 0.8 min | Yes |
| GLM-5.3 (max), Claude Code | 73 | 4.3 min | No |
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 | Geospatial knowledge |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Llama 3.3 70B (Non-reasoning), Terminus-2 | Ranked | 9 | 6 | 10 | 8 | 0 | 82 |
