Axis Spatial

Search modelsMenu

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

  • 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

IntelligenceScores 0 to 100: Kimi K3 (Reasoning): 79025507510079Kimi K3(Reasoning)
Data table: Intelligence
Intelligence
ModelDeveloperIntelligence
Kimi K3 (Reasoning)Moonshot AI79

Cost per task

USD per agent task · Lower is better

Cost per taskCost per task in US dollars: Kimi K2.6 (Reasoning), Terminus-2: $0.089; Kimi K2.7 Code (Reasoning), Terminus-2: $0.11; Kimi K2.7 Code (Reasoning), Kimi Code: $0.18; Kimi K3 (Reasoning), Terminus-2: $0.23; Kimi K2.6 (Reasoning), Kimi Code: $0.27$0$0.10$0.20$0.30$0.40Kimi K2.6 (Reasoning)Terminus-2$0.089Kimi K2.7 Code (Reasoning)Terminus-2$0.11Kimi K2.7 Code (Reasoning)Kimi Code$0.18Kimi K3 (Reasoning)Terminus-2$0.23Kimi K2.6 (Reasoning)Kimi Code$0.27
Data table: Cost per task
Cost per task
ModelDeveloperCost per task
Kimi K2.6 (Reasoning), Terminus-2Moonshot AI$0.089
Kimi K2.7 Code (Reasoning), Terminus-2Moonshot AI$0.11
Kimi K2.7 Code (Reasoning), Kimi CodeMoonshot AI$0.18
Kimi K3 (Reasoning), Terminus-2Moonshot AI$0.23
Kimi K2.6 (Reasoning), Kimi CodeMoonshot AI$0.27

Time per task

Minutes per agent task · Lower is better

Time per taskTime per task: Kimi K2.7 Code (Reasoning), Kimi Code: 1.9 min; Kimi K3 (Reasoning), Terminus-2: 2.7 min; Kimi K2.6 (Reasoning), Kimi Code: 3.0 min; Kimi K2.6 (Reasoning), Terminus-2: 3.5 min; Kimi K2.7 Code (Reasoning), Terminus-2: 4.0 min01234Kimi K2.7 Code (Reasoning)Kimi Code1.9 minKimi K3 (Reasoning)Terminus-22.7 minKimi K2.6 (Reasoning)Kimi Code3.0 minKimi K2.6 (Reasoning)Terminus-23.5 minKimi K2.7 Code (Reasoning)Terminus-24.0 min
Data table: Time per task
Time per task
ModelDeveloperTime per task (at 100 output tokens/s)
Kimi K2.7 Code (Reasoning), Kimi CodeMoonshot AI1.9 min
Kimi K3 (Reasoning), Terminus-2Moonshot AI2.7 min
Kimi K2.6 (Reasoning), Kimi CodeMoonshot AI3.0 min
Kimi K2.6 (Reasoning), Terminus-2Moonshot AI3.5 min
Kimi K2.7 Code (Reasoning), Terminus-2Moonshot AI4.0 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

Geospatial Intelligence Index: Text onlyScores 0 to 100: Claude Opus 5.5 (xhigh): 89; GPT-6.1 Sol (medium): 86; DeepSeek V4 Pro (max): 79; Kimi K3 (Reasoning): 790255075100Claude Opus 5.5 (xhigh)89GPT-6.1 Sol (medium)86DeepSeek V4 Pro (max)79Kimi K3 (Reasoning)79
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
Geospatial Intelligence Index: Text only
ModelDeveloperGeospatial Intelligence Index: Text only
Claude Opus 5.5 (xhigh)Anthropic89
GPT-6.1 Sol (medium)OpenAI86
DeepSeek V4 Pro (max)DeepSeek79
Kimi K3 (Reasoning)Moonshot AI79

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

Geospatial Agent Index: Text onlyScores 0 to 100: Claude Opus 5.5 (xhigh), Claude Code: 85; GPT-6.1 Sol (xhigh), Codex: 82; GLM-5.3 (max), Claude Code: 73; Kimi K3 (Reasoning), Terminus-2: 72; Kimi K2.7 Code (Reasoning), Kimi Code: 72; Kimi K2.7 Code (Reasoning), Terminus-2: 71; Kimi K2.6 (Reasoning), Terminus-2: 70; Kimi K2.6 (Reasoning), Kimi Code: 690255075100Claude Opus 5.5 (xhigh)Claude Code85GPT-6.1 Sol (xhigh)Codex82GLM-5.3 (max)Claude Code73Kimi K3 (Reasoning)Terminus-272Kimi K2.7 Code (Reasoning)Kimi Code72Kimi K2.7 Code (Reasoning)Terminus-271Kimi K2.6 (Reasoning)Terminus-270Kimi K2.6 (Reasoning)Kimi Code69
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

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

Earth-Bench V2Scores 0 to 100: Claude Opus 5.5 (high), Claude Code: 79; GPT-6 Sol (high), Codex: 75; Kimi K3 (Reasoning), Terminus-2: 72; Kimi K2.7 Code (Reasoning), Kimi Code: 71; Kimi K2.7 Code (Reasoning), Terminus-2: 69; Kimi K2.6 (Reasoning), Terminus-2: 68; Kimi K2.6 (Reasoning), Kimi Code: 630255075100Claude Opus 5.5 (high)Claude Code79GPT-6 Sol (high)Codex75Kimi K3 (Reasoning)Terminus-272Kimi K2.7 Code (Reasoning)Kimi Code71Kimi K2.7 Code (Reasoning)Terminus-269Kimi K2.6 (Reasoning)Terminus-268Kimi K2.6 (Reasoning)Kimi Code63
Data table: Earth-Bench V2

GeoBenchX

Maps, numbers and lists from country and city data; some tasks should be declined · 0 to 100 · Higher is better

GeoBenchXScores 0 to 100: Claude Opus 5.5 (xhigh), Claude Code: 83; GPT-6.1 Sol (medium), Codex: 79; 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; Kimi K2.7 Code (Reasoning), Terminus-2: 620255075100Claude Opus 5.5 (xhigh)Claude Code83GPT-6.1 Sol (medium)Codex79Kimi K2.6 (Reasoning)Terminus-264Kimi K3 (Reasoning)Terminus-264Kimi K2.6 (Reasoning)Kimi Code64Kimi K2.7 Code (Reasoning)Kimi Code64Kimi K2.7 Code (Reasoning)Terminus-262
Data table: GeoBenchX

GS-QA2

Spatial data reasoning over map and elevation data · 0 to 100 · Higher is better

GS-QA2Scores 0 to 100: Claude Opus 5.5 (xhigh), Claude Code: 94; GPT-6.1 Sol (xhigh), Codex: 94; Kimi K2.7 Code (Reasoning), Terminus-2: 82; Kimi K2.7 Code (Reasoning), Kimi Code: 80; Kimi K3 (Reasoning), Terminus-2: 80; Kimi K2.6 (Reasoning), Kimi Code: 80; Kimi K2.6 (Reasoning), Terminus-2: 770255075100Claude Opus 5.5 (xhigh)Claude Code94GPT-6.1 Sol (xhigh)Codex94Kimi K2.7 Code (Reasoning)Terminus-282Kimi K2.7 Code (Reasoning)Kimi Code80Kimi K3 (Reasoning)Terminus-280Kimi K2.6 (Reasoning)Kimi Code80Kimi K2.6 (Reasoning)Terminus-277
Data table: GS-QA2

GeoAgentBench

Guided workflows: multi-step spatial execution · 0 to 100 · Higher is better

GeoAgentBenchScores 0 to 100: Claude Opus 5.5 (high), Claude Code: 100; GPT-6.1 Sol (medium), Codex: 100; Kimi K3 (Reasoning), Terminus-2: 94; Kimi K2.7 Code (Reasoning), Terminus-2: 92; Kimi K2.6 (Reasoning), Terminus-2: 900255075100Claude Opus 5.5 (high)Claude Code100GPT-6.1 Sol (medium)Codex100Kimi K3 (Reasoning)Terminus-294Kimi K2.7 Code (Reasoning)Terminus-292Kimi K2.6 (Reasoning)Terminus-290
Data table: GeoAgentBench

GeoAnalystBench

Guided workflows: spatial workflow and code generation · 0 to 100 · Higher is better

GeoAnalystBenchScores 0 to 100: DeepSeek V4 Pro (max), Terminus-2: 100; GLM-5.2 (high), Terminus-2: 100; Kimi K2.7 Code (Reasoning), Terminus-2: 89; Kimi K3 (Reasoning), Terminus-2: 89; Kimi K2.6 (Reasoning), Terminus-2: 790255075100DeepSeek V4 Pro (max)Terminus-2100GLM-5.2 (high)Terminus-2100Kimi K2.7 Code (Reasoning)Terminus-289Kimi K3 (Reasoning)Terminus-289Kimi K2.6 (Reasoning)Terminus-279
Data table: GeoAnalystBench

Vision

Earth-Bench V2 images

Questions on images, no tools · 0 to 100 · Higher is better

Earth-Bench V2 imagesScores 0 to 100: GPT-5.6 Sol (high): 76; Claude Opus 5.5 (high): 74; Kimi K3 (Reasoning): 66; Kimi K2.6 (Reasoning): 60; Kimi K2.7 Code (Reasoning): 560255075100GPT-5.6 Sol (high)76Claude Opus 5.5 (high)74Kimi K3 (Reasoning)66Kimi K2.6 (Reasoning)60Kimi K2.7 Code (Reasoning)56
Data table: Earth-Bench V2 images
Earth-Bench V2 images
ModelDeveloperEarth-Bench V2 images
GPT-5.6 Sol (high)OpenAI76
Claude Opus 5.5 (high)Anthropic74
Kimi K3 (Reasoning)Moonshot AI66
Kimi K2.6 (Reasoning)Moonshot AI60
Kimi K2.7 Code (Reasoning)Moonshot AI56

ThinkGeo images

Questions on images, no tools · 0 to 100 · Higher is better

ThinkGeo imagesScores 0 to 100: Claude Sonnet 5.5 (high): 50; GPT-6 Luna (high): 43; Kimi K2.7 Code (Reasoning): 31; Kimi K3 (Reasoning): 30; Kimi K2.6 (Reasoning): 280255075100Claude Sonnet 5.5 (high)50GPT-6 Luna (high)43Kimi K2.7 Code (Reasoning)31Kimi K3 (Reasoning)30Kimi K2.6 (Reasoning)28
Data table: ThinkGeo images
ThinkGeo images
ModelDeveloperThinkGeo images
Claude Sonnet 5.5 (high)Anthropic50
GPT-6 Luna (high)OpenAI43
Kimi K2.7 Code (Reasoning)Moonshot AI31
Kimi K3 (Reasoning)Moonshot AI30
Kimi K2.6 (Reasoning)Moonshot AI28

Knowledge

Geospatial knowledge

Questions on geospatial knowledge · 0 to 100 · Higher is better

Geospatial knowledgeScores 0 to 100: Claude Sonnet 4.6 (high): 98; Gemini 3.8 Flash (low): 94; Kimi K2.7 Code (Reasoning): 92; Kimi K3 (Reasoning): 92; Kimi K2.6 (Reasoning): 920255075100Claude Sonnet 4.6 (high)98Gemini 3.8 Flash (low)94Kimi K2.7 Code (Reasoning)92Kimi K3 (Reasoning)92Kimi K2.6 (Reasoning)92
Data table: Geospatial knowledge
Geospatial knowledge
ModelDeveloperGeospatial knowledge
Claude Sonnet 4.6 (high)Anthropic98
Gemini 3.8 Flash (low)Google94
Kimi K2.7 Code (Reasoning)Moonshot AI92
Kimi K3 (Reasoning)Moonshot AI92
Kimi K2.6 (Reasoning)Moonshot AI92

Cost

Cost per task

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

Cost per taskCost per task in US dollars: GPT-6.1 Sol (xhigh), Codex: $0.085; Kimi K2.6 (Reasoning), Terminus-2: $0.089; Kimi K2.7 Code (Reasoning), Terminus-2: $0.11; Kimi K2.7 Code (Reasoning), Kimi Code: $0.18; Kimi K3 (Reasoning), Terminus-2: $0.23; Claude Opus 5.5 (xhigh), Claude Code: $0.25; Kimi K2.6 (Reasoning), Kimi Code: $0.27$0$0.10$0.20$0.30$0.40GPT-6.1 Sol (xhigh)Codex$0.085Kimi K2.6 (Reasoning)Terminus-2$0.089Kimi K2.7 Code (Reasoning)Terminus-2$0.11Kimi K2.7 Code (Reasoning)Kimi Code$0.18Kimi K3 (Reasoning)Terminus-2$0.23Claude Opus 5.5 (xhigh)Claude Code$0.25Kimi K2.6 (Reasoning)Kimi Code$0.27
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

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: Kimi K2.6 (Reasoning), Terminus-2: 69.57, $0.089; Kimi K2.7 Code (Reasoning), Terminus-2: 71.08, $0.11; Kimi K3 (Reasoning), Terminus-2: 71.99, $0.23; Kimi K2.6 (Reasoning), Kimi Code: 69.05, $0.27; Kimi K2.7 Code (Reasoning), Kimi Code: 71.76, $0.18; Claude Opus 5.5 (xhigh), Claude Code: 84.65, $0.25; GPT-6.1 Sol (xhigh), Codex: 81.82, $0.085; GLM-5.3 (max), Claude Code: 73.4, $0.48Most attractive quadrant666870727476788082848688$0.05$0.10$0.20$0.50$1.00Cost per task (USD, log scale)Geospatial Agent IndexKimi K3 (Reasoning), Terminus-2Kimi K2.7 Code (Reasoning), Kimi CodeKimi K2.7 Code (Reasoning), Terminus-2Kimi K2.6 (Reasoning), Terminus-2Kimi K2.6 (Reasoning), Kimi CodeClaude Opus 5.5 (xhigh), Claude CodeGPT-6.1 Sol (xhigh), CodexGLM-5.3 (max), 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
Kimi K2.6 (Reasoning), Terminus-270$0.089No
Kimi K2.7 Code (Reasoning), Terminus-271$0.11No
Kimi K3 (Reasoning), Terminus-272$0.23No
Kimi K2.6 (Reasoning), Kimi Code69$0.27No
Kimi K2.7 Code (Reasoning), Kimi Code72$0.18No
Claude Opus 5.5 (xhigh), Claude Code85$0.25Yes
GPT-6.1 Sol (xhigh), Codex82$0.085Yes
GLM-5.3 (max), Claude Code73$0.48No

Time

Time per task

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

Time per taskTime per task: GPT-6.1 Sol (xhigh), Codex: 0.8 min; Claude Opus 5.5 (xhigh), Claude Code: 1.4 min; Kimi K2.7 Code (Reasoning), Kimi Code: 1.9 min; Kimi K3 (Reasoning), Terminus-2: 2.7 min; Kimi K2.6 (Reasoning), Kimi Code: 3.0 min; Kimi K2.6 (Reasoning), Terminus-2: 3.5 min; Kimi K2.7 Code (Reasoning), Terminus-2: 4.0 min01234GPT-6.1 Sol (xhigh)Codex0.8 minClaude Opus 5.5 (xhigh)Claude Code1.4 minKimi K2.7 Code (Reasoning)Kimi Code1.9 minKimi K3 (Reasoning)Terminus-22.7 minKimi K2.6 (Reasoning)Kimi Code3.0 minKimi K2.6 (Reasoning)Terminus-23.5 minKimi K2.7 Code (Reasoning)Terminus-24.0 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 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
Time per task
ModelDeveloperTime per task (at 100 output tokens/s)
GPT-6.1 Sol (xhigh), CodexOpenAI0.8 min
Claude Opus 5.5 (xhigh), Claude CodeAnthropic1.4 min
Kimi K2.7 Code (Reasoning), Kimi CodeMoonshot AI1.9 min
Kimi K3 (Reasoning), Terminus-2Moonshot AI2.7 min
Kimi K2.6 (Reasoning), Kimi CodeMoonshot AI3.0 min
Kimi K2.6 (Reasoning), Terminus-2Moonshot AI3.5 min
Kimi K2.7 Code (Reasoning), Terminus-2Moonshot AI4.0 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
Geospatial Agent Index vs. time per taskGeospatial Agent Index (0 to 100) against time per task (minutes), log scale: Kimi K2.6 (Reasoning), Terminus-2: 69.57, 3.5 min; Kimi K2.7 Code (Reasoning), Terminus-2: 71.08, 4.0 min; Kimi K3 (Reasoning), Terminus-2: 71.99, 2.7 min; Kimi K2.6 (Reasoning), Kimi Code: 69.05, 3.0 min; Kimi K2.7 Code (Reasoning), Kimi Code: 71.76, 1.9 min; Claude Opus 5.5 (xhigh), Claude Code: 84.65, 1.4 min; GPT-6.1 Sol (xhigh), Codex: 81.82, 0.8 min; GLM-5.3 (max), Claude Code: 73.4, 4.3 minMost attractive quadrant6668707274767880828486880.5 min1 min2 min5 minTime per task (minutes, log scale)Geospatial Agent IndexKimi K3 (Reasoning), Terminus-2Kimi K2.7 Code (Reasoning), Kimi CodeKimi K2.7 Code (Reasoning), Terminus-2Kimi K2.6 (Reasoning), Terminus-2Kimi K2.6 (Reasoning), Kimi CodeClaude Opus 5.5 (xhigh), Claude CodeGPT-6.1 Sol (xhigh), CodexGLM-5.3 (max), 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 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
Kimi K2.6 (Reasoning), Terminus-2703.5 minNo
Kimi K2.7 Code (Reasoning), Terminus-2714.0 minNo
Kimi K3 (Reasoning), Terminus-2722.7 minNo
Kimi K2.6 (Reasoning), Kimi Code693.0 minNo
Kimi K2.7 Code (Reasoning), Kimi Code721.9 minNo
Claude Opus 5.5 (xhigh), Claude Code851.4 minYes
GPT-6.1 Sol (xhigh), Codex820.8 minYes
GLM-5.3 (max), Claude Code734.3 minNo

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-QA2GeoAgentBenchGeoAnalystBenchEarth-Bench V2 imagesThinkGeo imagesGeospatial knowledge
Kimi K3 (Reasoning), Terminus-2Ranked7264809489663092
Kimi K2.7 Code (Reasoning), Kimi CodeRanked716480No dataNo data563192
Kimi K2.7 Code (Reasoning), Terminus-2Ranked6962829289563192
Kimi K2.6 (Reasoning), Terminus-2Ranked6864779079602892
Kimi K2.6 (Reasoning), Kimi CodeRanked636480No dataNo data602892

Frequently asked questions

What Moonshot AI models do you benchmark?
We benchmark 3 Moonshot AI models: Kimi K3, Kimi K2.7 Code and Kimi K2.6.
Which is the most intelligent Moonshot AI model for geospatial work?
Kimi K3 (Reasoning), with 78.6 on the Geospatial Intelligence Index (Text only), #28 of 61.
What is the cheapest Moonshot AI model per task?
Kimi K2.6 (Reasoning), Terminus-2, at $0.089 per agent task at list prices, #41 of 74 on the Geospatial Agent Index.
What is the fastest Moonshot AI model?
Kimi K2.7 Code (Reasoning), Kimi Code, at 1.9 min (estimated) per agent task at 100 output tokens per second, #36 of 74.
Does Moonshot AI offer open-weights models?
Yes: Kimi K3, Kimi K2.7 Code and Kimi K2.6. Their weights are published, so you can run them on your own hardware.
Which Moonshot AI models can read satellite imagery?
Kimi K3, Kimi K2.7 Code and Kimi K2.6 take images as input. The best on Vision is Kimi K3 (Reasoning), with 48.1.
How do Moonshot AI models do on Earth observation, GIS and geospatial knowledge?
Which Moonshot AI model is best for agent work, and in which harness?
Kimi K3 (Reasoning), Terminus-2, with 72.0 on the Geospatial Agent Index, #23 of 74, in the Terminus-2 harness.
How does Moonshot AI's best model compare with the overall leader?
Kimi K3 (Reasoning) scores 78.6 on the Geospatial Intelligence Index (Text only), 10.0 points behind the leader, Anthropic's Claude Opus 5.5 (xhigh), with 88.7.
Are any Moonshot AI models still being benchmarked?
No. Every Moonshot AI model listed has finished its benchmark and is ranked.
How should I choose between Moonshot AI models for geospatial work?
Start from the job. For the strongest answers, Kimi K3 (Reasoning); for agent work with data and code, Kimi K3 (Reasoning), Terminus-2; for the lowest cost, Kimi K2.6 (Reasoning), Terminus-2; for reading imagery, Kimi K3 (Reasoning); to run it yourself, Kimi K3. Each model page shows its scores on every evaluation.