I remember it like it was yesterday. I had this massive dataset—something like 4,000 drone images from a quarry mapping project. The kind of job where the client’s breathing down your neck, waiting for deliverables, and every minute counts. I fed the images into Metashape, hit “Process,” and… waited. And waited. Watching that progress bar inch along while my workstation fans kicked into overdrive. And the whole time, I kept asking myself: Am I using the right tool for this?

That wasn’t the first time I’d questioned it. Probably won’t be the last. Because let’s face it—when it comes to photogrammetry, there’s no one-size-fits-all solution. DJI Terra and Agisoft Metashape both have their fanbases. Both have their strengths. And both can leave you banging your head on the desk if you pick the wrong one for the job.

What I’ve learned (often the hard way) is that choosing between these two isn’t about which is “better” overall. It’s about what’s better for you—for your workflow, your gear, your project, and frankly, your patience level.

So, let’s break this down together. No fluff. No marketing spin. Just a real look at what each app brings to the table, where they shine, and where they fall short.

👉 If you want to try both DJI Terra and Agisoft Metashape side-by-side—without worrying whether your machine can handle it—check out Vagon Teams. It gives you instant access to high-performance cloud computers, so you can focus on testing, comparing, and creating, not fighting with hardware.

#1: DJI Terra: A Solid Choice… If You’re All-In on DJI

Here’s the thing about DJI Terra—it’s like that friend who’s amazing at one specific thing. But try to get them to do anything outside their lane, and… yeah, good luck.

If you’re flying a Phantom 4 RTK, Matrice 300 RTK, or any of DJI’s enterprise-level drones, Terra almost feels like an extension of your drone itself. The integration is smooth. You plan your mission, fly it, and boom—Terra pulls in your telemetry, your images, and gets to work without you having to think twice. I’ve used it on infrastructure inspections where I needed quick 2D maps and basic 3D models same day. Terra handled it without breaking a sweat. Real-time mapping during flight? A lifesaver when you're under pressure on-site.

What’s great about DJI Terra?

• It’s fast. Like, seriously fast, especially when working with DJI datasets it’s designed for.

• The interface is clean. Even someone who’s never touched photogrammetry software before can figure it out in an afternoon.

• The real-time reconstruction during flights? Super useful for emergency response teams or anyone who can’t afford to wait hours for processing.

But here’s where it gets tricky.

Where Terra falls short:

• It’s Windows-only. If you’re running macOS or Linux, no dice.

• It’s pretty much married to DJI gear. Sure, you can try to shoehorn in non-DJI imagery, but you’ll be fighting the software the whole way.

• The licensing model. Subscription-based, and not exactly cheap if you’re running multiple seats or higher-end features like LiDAR support.

I’ve heard people say “Terra’s only for people who don’t want to think about processing.” And honestly? There’s some truth to that. If you want to click a few buttons and get decent results without diving into settings or tweaking point clouds, it’s great. But if you’re the kind of person who likes to tinker, or if you’re working with mixed datasets (ground shots, non-DJI drones, etc.), it can start to feel limiting fast.

#2: Agisoft Metashape: For Those Who Want Full Control

If DJI Terra is the streamlined, no-fuss option, Agisoft Metashape is its opposite. Metashape is like a giant photogrammetry sandbox. It hands you the tools and says, “Go build whatever you want.” And that’s exactly why so many pros swear by it.

First off, Metashape plays nice with any imagery. DJI drones? Sure. Custom rigs? Absolutely. Handheld cameras? No problem. I’ve even thrown in smartphone photos alongside drone shots for smaller site models. The software doesn’t care where your images come from—as long as you feed it good data, it’ll do the job.

What really makes Metashape stand out is the control it gives you. Want to adjust tie point thresholds? Optimize your camera alignment? Mess with dense cloud quality? It’s all there. And if you’re into scripting, you can automate entire workflows with Python. I’ve seen survey teams build custom batch pipelines that run overnight and spit out models by morning, no manual clicks required.

Here’s where Metashape shines:

• Flexibility: Use any image source, any camera setup, any OS (Windows, macOS, Linux).

• Fine control: Every stage of processing can be tweaked, optimized, or customized.

• One-time license: Buy it once, use it as long as you like. Optional paid upgrades if you want newer versions down the road.

• Advanced outputs: Clean point clouds, detailed meshes, great texturing options.

But (and there’s always a but) Metashape isn’t what I’d call beginner-friendly. The interface isn’t going to win any design awards. And if you don’t know what you’re doing, it’s easy to end up with a messy point cloud or misaligned model. I’ve definitely had my share of head-scratching moments when I forgot to set a key parameter or used low-quality imagery and got garbage out.

It’s also hardware-hungry. Big datasets? Expect long processing times unless you’ve got serious CPU, GPU, and RAM firepower. That’s where a lot of people (including me) start looking for ways to offload work to more powerful machines.

Speed, Quality, and Cost: How They Compare

Let’s talk brass tacks—because at the end of the day, this is what most of us actually care about: how fast can I get my deliverables, how good will they be, and how much is it going to cost me?

Speed:

Here’s what I’ve seen in practice. If you’re working with DJI drone data, especially from something like the Phantom 4 RTK or Matrice 300, DJI Terra is fast. Really fast. I’ve processed a 500-image survey of a construction site in Terra in around 20 minutes on a decent workstation. Same dataset in Metashape? Took closer to 35-40 minutes—but with a bit more fine detail in the end result.

That’s the trade-off. Terra is optimized for speed, especially for quick orthomosaics or basic 3D models. Metashape can take longer because it gives you more control at each stage, and those extra steps (dense cloud settings, mesh cleanup, texture tweaks) eat time.

Quality:

Metashape wins here if you’re after precision and polish. The dense point clouds are cleaner. You’ve got more options to manually fix or optimize areas where alignment was tricky. I’ve seen models where Terra’s output was good enough for volumetrics or basic visualization, but Metashape’s version picked up small features like fine cracks in rock walls or subtle terrain variations that Terra glossed over.

That said—if your client just wants a quick ortho or volume calc? Terra’s speed might matter more than tiny detail differences.

Cost:

This one’s easy to overlook at first—and I’ve seen people get burned by it.

• DJI Terra: Subscription-based, so you’re looking at recurring costs. And not cheap, especially if you want advanced features (LiDAR processing, more images per project, etc.). It adds up fast, particularly for small teams or freelancers.

• Metashape: One-time license. Pay once, use it forever. Sure, if you want major upgrades years down the line, you’ll pay for those, but it’s optional. For folks who plan to use it long-term, it usually ends up cheaper.

One more thing—both apps need good hardware for big projects. Don’t think you’ll get away with running 2,000 images on your average laptop. That’s where a lot of people start looking for alternatives like cloud-based workstations (yeah, I’ll get to that).

Common Pitfalls to Watch Out For

Here’s where I wish someone had grabbed me by the shoulders early on and said, “Slow down. Think this through.” Because it’s easy to make choices with Terra or Metashape that’ll come back to haunt you.

⚠️ Thinking faster always means better.
I’ve fallen for this. You’re on-site, the client’s waiting, so you rush the processing. DJI Terra spits out an ortho in record time—but when you start analyzing it, you realize the resolution wasn’t high enough, or the model missed small but critical features. Sometimes, it’s worth the extra 20-30 minutes Metashape takes to get that extra layer of detail—especially if the deliverable is going under a microscope.

⚠️ Underestimating your hardware needs.
Both of these tools love powerful machines. I’m talking serious CPU, GPU, and lots of RAM. Trying to process a large dataset on a mid-tier laptop? Painful. You’ll either crash, stall out, or spend hours longer than necessary. It’s not just about owning good gear—it’s about matching the machine to the size of your job.

⚠️ Getting locked in without realizing it.
This one stings. I’ve seen people go all-in on DJI Terra because of how easy it is with DJI gear… then get stuck when they want to process imagery from another platform. Or when they realize they need something Terra doesn’t offer. Before you commit, be honest about where your projects might take you down the road.

⚠️ Overcomplicating with Metashape when you don’t need to.
It’s tempting to tweak every setting just because you can. But sometimes the default workflow in Metashape is good enough. I’ve burned hours fiddling with settings that barely moved the needle on quality but cost me precious time.

These are the kind of lessons that only really hit home when you’re racing a deadline. Or when you realize you’ve just wasted a whole day re-processing data because of one small misstep.

So, Which One Should You Choose?

Alright—so here’s where I’m supposed to give you a simple answer, right? Except there isn’t one. Because the truth is, it depends on what kind of work you’re doing, what gear you have, and how much time you want to spend tweaking things.

Go with DJI Terra if…

• You’re fully in the DJI ecosystem. Phantom 4 RTK, Matrice 300, whatever—you want software that “just works” with your gear.

• Speed is your top priority. Quick orthos, inspection models, fast turnarounds—Terra’s made for that.

• You don’t want to mess with settings or fine-tuning point clouds. You want to hit “Process” and move on.

Choose Agisoft Metashape if…

• You want flexibility. Maybe you’re combining drone shots with ground photos. Maybe you’re using different cameras, or you know you’ll be working on non-DJI projects.

• You care about control. You want to adjust things at every stage, clean up models, or automate tasks with scripts.

• You’re in this for the long haul and don’t want to keep paying subscription fees.

There’s no shame in picking one over the other. I’ve used both, sometimes on the same project. One for quick previews, the other for the final model. The real win is knowing what you need most—and picking the tool that gets you there without unnecessary headaches.

Handling Big Datasets Without Headaches: How Vagon Teams Can Help?

Here’s where I hit my breaking point with both DJI Terra and Metashape: the hardware bottleneck. Even with a decent workstation, there were times my machine just couldn’t keep up. Processing massive point clouds, stitching thousands of high-res images, exporting huge 3D models—it would either crawl, crash, or leave me wondering if I should take up gardening instead.

That’s when I tried running both apps on Vagon Teams. And honestly? It felt like I finally got out of my own way. No more worrying whether my laptop had enough juice or whether I’d need to spend thousands on another desktop I’d outgrow in a year.

With Vagon Teams, I could:

• Spin up high-performance cloud computers with serious GPUs, tons of RAM, and fast storage—on demand.

• Handle datasets I wouldn’t even attempt on my local machine.

• Share access with teammates, so we weren’t passing files back and forth or dealing with version confusion.

• Upload and manage huge files easily using Vagon Files, without waiting ages for transfers.

And the best part? When I was done, I just shut the machine down. No hardware maintenance. No updates to manage. No stress about whether I had enough power to take on the next big job.

If you’re juggling large photogrammetry projects and feel like your hardware’s holding you back, this kind of setup is a game changer. It’s not about replacing DJI Terra or Metashape—it’s about giving them the environment they need to shine.

Final Thoughts

At the end of the day, both DJI Terra and Agisoft Metashape are solid tools. But they’re not magic wands. They won’t save a bad dataset, and they won’t make your hardware any faster. What will? Picking the right tool for the job and setting yourself up with the right environment to let that tool do its thing.

I’ve been on both sides—staring at frozen progress bars, and watching clean models render faster than I expected. The difference wasn’t just the software. It was having the power behind the scenes to back it up.

So whether you’re team Terra, team Metashape, or you bounce between both—just make sure your setup lets you focus on delivering great work, not babysitting your machine.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs):

Is DJI Terra better than Agisoft Metashape?
Not necessarily—it depends on your workflow. DJI Terra is amazing if you’re flying DJI drones and want fast, integrated processing, especially for orthomosaics and quick 3D models. Agisoft Metashape gives you way more flexibility, control over processing settings, and works with imagery from any camera or drone. It’s not about which is better—it’s about which fits your needs.

Can DJI Terra process non-DJI images?
Technically, yes—but you’ll probably run into headaches. Terra is really designed to work with DJI’s ecosystem (Phantom, Matrice, etc.). If you’re using non-DJI imagery regularly, you’re better off with Metashape or similar photogrammetry software that’s built for mixed datasets.

How fast is DJI Terra compared to Metashape?
For DJI drone data, DJI Terra is usually faster—sometimes by a lot. I’ve seen 500-image datasets process in 20 minutes with Terra, while Metashape took closer to 35-40 minutes. But speed isn’t everything—Metashape tends to produce cleaner, more detailed point clouds if you dial in the right settings.

Does Agisoft Metashape work with DJI drones?
Absolutely. Metashape doesn’t care what drone you used—it’ll process images from DJI, Parrot, Autel, Skydio, custom rigs, or even handheld cameras. That’s part of what makes it so popular for people who work with different platforms.

Is DJI Terra subscription-based?
Yes—DJI Terra uses a subscription model. That means ongoing costs, which can add up, especially if you need advanced features like LiDAR support or want to process larger datasets. Metashape, by contrast, is a one-time license (with optional paid upgrades for newer versions).

Can I use Metashape on a Mac or Linux machine?
Yes! Metashape runs on Windows, macOS, and Linux. DJI Terra, on the other hand, is Windows-only.

What kind of hardware do I need for DJI Terra or Metashape?
Both apps need serious hardware if you’re processing large datasets. Think lots of RAM (32GB or more is ideal), a powerful GPU (NVIDIA cards are widely supported), and fast storage. If your local machine struggles, cloud options like Vagon Teams can give you access to high-performance setups without the investment in physical hardware.

Does Metashape support scripting or automation?
Yep—Metashape has full Python scripting support. You can automate everything from image alignment to export, build batch pipelines, or integrate it into larger workflows. DJI Terra doesn’t offer that level of automation.

Which is easier for beginners—DJI Terra or Metashape?
DJI Terra, hands down. The interface is clean, and the workflows are simplified. Metashape can feel intimidating at first because it gives you so many options, but once you learn it, that flexibility is a big advantage.

Can I use DJI Terra or Metashape without a powerful local computer?
Not really—at least not comfortably for big jobs. Both apps demand good hardware for large image sets or high-detail models. If you want to avoid hardware headaches, cloud solutions (like Vagon Teams) let you process heavy jobs on virtual machines built for this kind of work.