No One Knows the State of the Art in Geospatial Foundation Models

Foundation models are rapidly transforming Earth observation by enabling scalable pretraining across diverse unlabeled geospatial modalities. However, their architectural diversity ranging from encoder-only to encoder-decoder and masked autoencoding paradigms makes it challenging to assess performance trade offs in a consistent manner. In this work, we present an apples-to-apples comparison of leading FM architectures designed for geospatial multimodal reasoning, with a particular focus on flexibility across varied spectral band configurations. We standardize pretraining using identical self supervised learning objectives and training datasets, and evaluate all models under consistent parameterization on the GEOBench benchmark across classification and segmentation tasks. Our results offer new insights into the design trade-offs between model flexibility, modality alignment, and downstream task performance. By highlighting architectural strengths and limitations under controlled conditions, this study provides practical guidance for building next generation geospatial foundation models capable of robust multimodal reasoning.

Geospatial foundation models pretrained on satellite imagery promise broad generalization across remote sensing tasks and regions, but their geographic transferability has not been systematically tested, especially in agriculture applications. This paper presents a controlled benchmark that evaluates three models, Prithvi, SpectralGPT, and SatMAE, on multi-temporal crop segmentation and change detection across four U.S. states, Iowa, North Carolina, California, and Minnesota. By assigning each train, validation, and test split to a separate region, we measure how well each model transfers to land it has not seen. All three degrade sharply under regional distribution shift, predicting only the most common crops while missing rare ones. We further find that fitting these models to a shared input format affects each one differently, which complicates direct architectural comparison. These results expose key limitations of current geospatial foundation models for agriculture and point to region aware evaluation as a necessary standard.

Benchmarks for Geospatial Foundation Models (GFMs) increasingly rank models by aggregate score, but such rankings obscure why models differ: how much of the gap is architecture, how much is decoder capacity, and how much is a use-case-specific artefact? This study addresses that gap through a controlled comparison of two GFMs developed under European Space Agency's $Φ$-lab with contrasting design philosophies: THOR, which introduces a compute-adaptive architecture supporting variable patch sizes and unifies Sentinel-1, -2, and -3 data at their native resolutions; and TerraMind, a multimodal generative GFM pretrained with a dual-scale token/pixel objective that enables any-to-any cross-modal generation (Thinking-in-Modalities) to infer missing sensors at inference time. Rather than reporting a single leaderboard, we investigate the axes along which the two architectures actually differ - patch size, decoder complexity, finetuning regime, input modality, and model scale - across ten use cases spanning segmentation and regression in diverse domains, including climate disaster response, methane leak detection, snow monitoring, or sea ice mapping. We find that architectural design choices - patch size and decoder type in particular - explain more performance variance than model identity itself, that the two models embody complementary investment strategies (pretraining-time scale for TerraMind versus inference-time tokenisation for THOR), and that correctly interpreting results requires dataset-level characterisation. The resulting picture is not a single winner but a set of hypotheses and a diagnostic ablation methodology that we expect to generalise to future GFMs beyond THOR and TerraMind.