Moonshot AI: geospatial agent results
Helps you choose the best Moonshot AI model for geospatial work: GIS and Earth observation agent tasks, vision and knowledge, with cost and time.
Overview
Lowest cost
- #1Kimi K2.6 (Reasoning), Terminus-2$0.089
- #2Kimi K2.7 Code (Reasoning), Terminus-2$0.11
- #3Kimi K2.7 Code (Reasoning), Kimi Code$0.18
- #4Kimi K3 (Reasoning), Terminus-2$0.23
- #5Kimi K2.6 (Reasoning), Kimi Code$0.27
Cost per agent task, at list prices
Fastest
- #1Kimi K2.7 Code (Reasoning), Kimi Code1.9 min (estimated)
- #2Kimi K3 (Reasoning), Terminus-22.7 min
- #3Kimi K2.6 (Reasoning), Kimi Code3.0 min (estimated)
- #4Kimi K2.6 (Reasoning), Terminus-23.5 min
- #5Kimi K2.7 Code (Reasoning), Terminus-24.0 min
Time per agent task, at 100 output tokens/s
- For intelligence, the top Moonshot AI models are Kimi K3 (Reasoning) (79) on the Geospatial Intelligence Index (Text only).
- For cost, the cheapest per agent task are Kimi K2.6 (Reasoning) ($0.089), Kimi K2.7 Code (Reasoning) ($0.11) and Kimi K2.7 Code (Reasoning) ($0.18).
- For speed, the fastest per agent task are Kimi K2.7 Code (Reasoning) (1.9 min (estimated)), Kimi K3 (Reasoning) (2.7 min) and Kimi K2.6 (Reasoning) (3.0 min (estimated)).
- For context window, the largest are Kimi K3: 1M tokens, Kimi K2.6: 262K tokens and Kimi K2.7 Code: 262K tokens.
Intelligence
Geospatial Intelligence Index, Text only · Higher is better
Data table: Intelligence
| Model | Developer | Intelligence |
|---|---|---|
| Kimi K3 (Reasoning) | Moonshot AI | 79 |
Cost per task
USD per agent task · Lower is better
Data table: Cost per task
| Model | Developer | Cost per task |
|---|---|---|
| Kimi K2.6 (Reasoning), Terminus-2 | Moonshot AI | $0.089 |
| Kimi K2.7 Code (Reasoning), Terminus-2 | Moonshot AI | $0.11 |
| Kimi K2.7 Code (Reasoning), Kimi Code | Moonshot AI | $0.18 |
| Kimi K3 (Reasoning), Terminus-2 | Moonshot AI | $0.23 |
| Kimi K2.6 (Reasoning), Kimi Code | Moonshot AI | $0.27 |
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) |
|---|---|---|
| Kimi K2.7 Code (Reasoning), Kimi Code | Moonshot AI | 1.9 min |
| Kimi K3 (Reasoning), Terminus-2 | Moonshot AI | 2.7 min |
| Kimi K2.6 (Reasoning), Kimi Code | Moonshot AI | 3.0 min |
| Kimi K2.6 (Reasoning), Terminus-2 | Moonshot AI | 3.5 min |
| Kimi K2.7 Code (Reasoning), Terminus-2 | Moonshot AI | 4.0 min |
Models
Kimi K3
Open weightsReads images
1M token context · Released 16 July 2026
$3.00 input · $15.00 output per 1M tokens
Kimi K2.7 Code
Open weightsReads images
262K token context · Released 12 June 2026
$0.95 input · $4.00 output per 1M tokens
Kimi K2.6
Open weightsReads images
262K token context · Released 20 April 2026
$0.95 input · $4.00 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 Moonshot AI 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 |
| Kimi K3 (Reasoning) | Moonshot AI | 79 |
Text + vision
No Moonshot AI model has a Text + vision score yet: that view also needs Vision agents and Vision results.
Provisional, so not on these charts: Kimi K2.6 (Reasoning), Kimi K2.7 Code (Reasoning). Their finished evaluations are in the charts below.
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 Moonshot AI 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 |
| Kimi K3 (Reasoning), Terminus-2 | Moonshot AI | 72 |
| Kimi K2.7 Code (Reasoning), Kimi Code | Moonshot AI | 72 |
| Kimi K2.7 Code (Reasoning), Terminus-2 | Moonshot AI | 71 |
| Kimi K2.6 (Reasoning), Terminus-2 | Moonshot AI | 70 |
| Kimi K2.6 (Reasoning), Kimi Code | Moonshot AI | 69 |
Text + vision
No Moonshot AI 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 |
| Kimi K3 (Reasoning), Terminus-2 | Moonshot AI | 72 |
| Kimi K2.7 Code (Reasoning), Kimi Code | Moonshot AI | 71 |
| Kimi K2.7 Code (Reasoning), Terminus-2 | Moonshot AI | 69 |
| Kimi K2.6 (Reasoning), Terminus-2 | Moonshot AI | 68 |
| Kimi K2.6 (Reasoning), Kimi Code | Moonshot AI | 63 |
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 |
| 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 |
| Kimi K2.7 Code (Reasoning), Terminus-2 | Moonshot AI | 62 |
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 |
| Kimi K2.7 Code (Reasoning), Terminus-2 | Moonshot AI | 82 |
| Kimi K2.7 Code (Reasoning), Kimi Code | Moonshot AI | 80 |
| Kimi K3 (Reasoning), Terminus-2 | Moonshot AI | 80 |
| Kimi K2.6 (Reasoning), Kimi Code | Moonshot AI | 80 |
| Kimi K2.6 (Reasoning), Terminus-2 | Moonshot AI | 77 |
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 |
| Kimi K3 (Reasoning), Terminus-2 | Moonshot AI | 94 |
| Kimi K2.7 Code (Reasoning), Terminus-2 | Moonshot AI | 92 |
| Kimi K2.6 (Reasoning), Terminus-2 | Moonshot AI | 90 |
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 |
| Kimi K2.7 Code (Reasoning), Terminus-2 | Moonshot AI | 89 |
| Kimi K3 (Reasoning), Terminus-2 | Moonshot AI | 89 |
| Kimi K2.6 (Reasoning), Terminus-2 | Moonshot AI | 79 |
Vision
Earth-Bench V2 images
Questions on images, no tools · 0 to 100 · Higher is better
Data table: Earth-Bench V2 images
| Model | Developer | Earth-Bench V2 images |
|---|---|---|
| GPT-5.6 Sol (high) | OpenAI | 76 |
| Claude Opus 5.5 (high) | Anthropic | 74 |
| Kimi K3 (Reasoning) | Moonshot AI | 66 |
| Kimi K2.6 (Reasoning) | Moonshot AI | 60 |
| Kimi K2.7 Code (Reasoning) | Moonshot AI | 56 |
ThinkGeo images
Questions on images, no tools · 0 to 100 · Higher is better
Data table: ThinkGeo images
| Model | Developer | ThinkGeo images |
|---|---|---|
| Claude Sonnet 5.5 (high) | Anthropic | 50 |
| GPT-6 Luna (high) | OpenAI | 43 |
| Kimi K2.7 Code (Reasoning) | Moonshot AI | 31 |
| Kimi K3 (Reasoning) | Moonshot AI | 30 |
| Kimi K2.6 (Reasoning) | Moonshot AI | 28 |
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 | |
| Kimi K2.7 Code (Reasoning) | Moonshot AI | 92 |
| Kimi K3 (Reasoning) | Moonshot AI | 92 |
| Kimi K2.6 (Reasoning) | Moonshot 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 Moonshot AI 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 |
|---|---|---|
| GPT-6.1 Sol (xhigh), Codex | OpenAI | $0.085 |
| Kimi K2.6 (Reasoning), Terminus-2 | Moonshot AI | $0.089 |
| Kimi K2.7 Code (Reasoning), Terminus-2 | Moonshot AI | $0.11 |
| Kimi K2.7 Code (Reasoning), Kimi Code | Moonshot AI | $0.18 |
| Kimi K3 (Reasoning), Terminus-2 | Moonshot AI | $0.23 |
| Claude Opus 5.5 (xhigh), Claude Code | Anthropic | $0.25 |
| Kimi K2.6 (Reasoning), Kimi Code | Moonshot AI | $0.27 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Kimi K2.6 (Reasoning), Terminus-2 | 70 | $0.089 | No |
| Kimi K2.7 Code (Reasoning), Terminus-2 | 71 | $0.11 | No |
| Kimi K3 (Reasoning), Terminus-2 | 72 | $0.23 | No |
| Kimi K2.6 (Reasoning), Kimi Code | 69 | $0.27 | No |
| Kimi K2.7 Code (Reasoning), Kimi Code | 72 | $0.18 | No |
| 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 Moonshot AI 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 |
| Kimi K2.7 Code (Reasoning), Kimi Code | Moonshot AI | 1.9 min |
| Kimi K3 (Reasoning), Terminus-2 | Moonshot AI | 2.7 min |
| Kimi K2.6 (Reasoning), Kimi Code | Moonshot AI | 3.0 min |
| Kimi K2.6 (Reasoning), Terminus-2 | Moonshot AI | 3.5 min |
| Kimi K2.7 Code (Reasoning), Terminus-2 | Moonshot AI | 4.0 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Kimi K2.6 (Reasoning), Terminus-2 | 70 | 3.5 min | No |
| Kimi K2.7 Code (Reasoning), Terminus-2 | 71 | 4.0 min | No |
| Kimi K3 (Reasoning), Terminus-2 | 72 | 2.7 min | No |
| Kimi K2.6 (Reasoning), Kimi Code | 69 | 3.0 min | No |
| Kimi K2.7 Code (Reasoning), Kimi Code | 72 | 1.9 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 | Earth-Bench V2 images | ThinkGeo images | Geospatial knowledge |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Kimi K3 (Reasoning), Terminus-2 | Ranked | 72 | 64 | 80 | 94 | 89 | 66 | 30 | 92 |
| Kimi K2.7 Code (Reasoning), Kimi Code | Ranked | 71 | 64 | 80 | No data | No data | 56 | 31 | 92 |
| Kimi K2.7 Code (Reasoning), Terminus-2 | Ranked | 69 | 62 | 82 | 92 | 89 | 56 | 31 | 92 |
| Kimi K2.6 (Reasoning), Terminus-2 | Ranked | 68 | 64 | 77 | 90 | 79 | 60 | 28 | 92 |
| Kimi K2.6 (Reasoning), Kimi Code | Ranked | 63 | 64 | 80 | No data | No data | 60 | 28 | 92 |
