Axis Spatial

Claude Code – GLM-5.3-Flash (max): geospatial agent results

Claude Code – GLM-5.3-Flash (max) by Z.ai, run under Claude Code: the model's Geospatial Intelligence Index and groups, and this configuration's Geospatial Agent Index, score on each benchmark and each kind of geospatial work, cost, time and token use.

Summary

Geospatial Agent Index
41* (partial: attempt 1 on 135 of 565 tasks) (partial coverage, not ranked: 21 of 147 Earth-Bench V2 tasks; 114 of 173 GeoBenchX tasks; GS-QA2 incomplete)
Cost per task
$0.139
Time per task
18.3 min
Tokens per attempt
1.26M
Turns per attempt
25.9
Attempts decided
89
Judged by
Claude Sonnet 5.5 (90 counted attempts); 35 results awaiting review

Geospatial Intelligence Index

GLM-5.3-Flash at each reasoning level we run, with its four group scores. Each model is shown at its highest reasoning level, as Artificial Analysis does; other levels are under 'Show every reasoning level'. See the Geospatial Intelligence Index.

GLM-5.3-Flash: Geospatial Intelligence Index at each reasoning level
ModelGeospatial Intelligence IndexRank (every reasoning level)Text-only viewAgents (3/9)Coding to a written method (2/9)Earth science (2/9)Perception (2/9)Scored in
GLM-5.3-Flash (max) (default view)Not ranked yetNot ranked yetNot ranked yet46*849244Terminus-2
GLM-5.3-Flash (low)Not ranked yetNot ranked yetNot ranked yet52*948546*Terminus-2

Not ranked yet: GLM-5.3-Flash (max): Agents: attempt 1 on 49 of 245 GS-QA2 tasks. GLM-5.3-Flash (low): Agents: attempt 1 on 61 of 245 GS-QA2 tasks; Perception: 119 of 136 image questions scored so far.

Geospatial Agent Index configurations

Every harness and reasoning level of GLM-5.3-Flash we run. See the Geospatial Agent Index.

GLM-5.3-Flash: Geospatial Agent Index configurations
ModelHarnessGeospatial Agent IndexRankCost per taskTime per task
Terminus-2 – GLM-5.3-Flash (low)Terminus-252* (partial: attempt 1 on 381 of 565 tasks)Not ranked yet$0.04612.3 min
Terminus-2 – GLM-5.3-Flash (max)Terminus-246* (partial: attempt 1 on 369 of 565 tasks)Not ranked yet$0.06720.7 min
Claude Code – GLM-5.3-Flash (max) (this page)Claude Code41* (partial: attempt 1 on 135 of 565 tasks)Not ranked yet$0.13918.3 min

Score by benchmark

Claude Code – GLM-5.3-Flash (max): score by benchmark

Average pass@1, 0 to 100 · Higher is better

Claude Code – GLM-5.3-Flash (max): score by benchmarkEarth-Bench V2: 43 (partial coverage); GeoBenchX: 38 (partial coverage); GS-QA2: No data025507510043Earth-BenchV238GeoBenchXNo dataGS-QA2
Data table: Claude Code – GLM-5.3-Flash (max): score by benchmark
Claude Code – GLM-5.3-Flash (max): by benchmark
BenchmarkScoreTasks with a decided attemptCost per taskTime per task
Earth-Bench V24321 of 147$0.06518.4 min
GeoBenchX3868 of 173$0.15318.3 min
GS-QA2No data0 of 245No dataNo data

Score by task format and kind of work

Claude Code – GLM-5.3-Flash (max): score by task format

Average pass@1 over the tasks of each task format, 0 to 100 · Higher is better

Claude Code – GLM-5.3-Flash (max): score by task formatMulti-step analysis: 0 (partial coverage); Single-answer questions: 48 (partial coverage); Recognising infeasible requests: 44 (partial coverage)02550751000Multi-stepanalysis48Single-answerquestions44Recognisinginfeasiblerequests
How to read this chart

What this shows. The same attempts as the index, grouped by task format. Groups with few tasks are less certain. About these breakdowns.

Data table: Claude Code – GLM-5.3-Flash (max): score by task format
Claude Code – GLM-5.3-Flash (max): by task format
Task formatScoreTasks with a decided attempt
Multi-step analysis012 of 82
Single-answer questions4829 of 404
Recognising infeasible requests4448 of 79

Claude Code – GLM-5.3-Flash (max): score by kind of work

Average pass@1 over the tasks of each kind of work, 0 to 100 · Higher is better

Claude Code – GLM-5.3-Flash (max): score by kind of workRaster and remote sensing: 44 (partial coverage); Vector and overlay: 50 (partial coverage); Networks and routing: No data; Climate and time series: 67 (partial coverage); Spatial statistics and interpolation: 0 (partial coverage); Mapping and cartography: 0 (partial coverage); Recognising infeasible requests: 44 (partial coverage)025507510044Raster andremotesensing50Vector andoverlayNo dataNetworks androuting67Climate andtime series0Spatialstatisticsand0Mapping andcartography44Recognisinginfeasiblerequests
How to read this chart

What this shows. The same attempts as the index, grouped by kind of work. Groups with few tasks are less certain. About these breakdowns.

Data table: Claude Code – GLM-5.3-Flash (max): score by kind of work
Claude Code – GLM-5.3-Flash (max): by kind of work
Kind of workScoreTasks with a decided attempt
Raster and remote sensing4425 of 209
Vector and overlay502 of 136
Networks and routingNo data0 of 0
Climate and time series673 of 68
Spatial statistics and interpolation04 of 14
Mapping and cartography07 of 59
Recognising infeasible requests4448 of 79

Claude Code – GLM-5.3-Flash (max): score by data type

Average pass@1 over the tasks of each data type, 0 to 100 · Higher is better

Claude Code – GLM-5.3-Flash (max): score by data typeOptical multispectral: 29 (partial coverage); Elevation or terrain: No data; Climate or gridded time series: 50 (partial coverage); Other gridded data: 78 (partial coverage); Vector only: 8 (partial coverage)025507510029OpticalmultispectralNo dataElevation orterrain50Climate orgridded timeseries78Other griddeddata8Vector only
How to read this chart

What this shows. The same attempts as the index, grouped by data type. Groups with few tasks are less certain. About these breakdowns.

Data table: Claude Code – GLM-5.3-Flash (max): score by data type
Claude Code – GLM-5.3-Flash (max): by data type
Data typeScoreTasks with a decided attempt
Optical multispectral2917 of 114
Elevation or terrainNo data0 of 115
Climate or gridded time series502 of 10
Other gridded data789 of 50
Vector only812 of 207

Claude Code – GLM-5.3-Flash (max): score by task length

Average pass@1 over the tasks of each task length, 0 to 100 · Higher is better

Claude Code – GLM-5.3-Flash (max): score by task lengthShort tasks: 89 (partial coverage); Medium tasks: 24 (partial coverage); Long tasks: 15 (partial coverage)025507510089Short tasks24Medium tasks15Long tasks
How to read this chart

What this shows. The same attempts as the index, grouped by task length. Groups with few tasks are less certain. About these breakdowns.

Data table: Claude Code – GLM-5.3-Flash (max): score by task length
Claude Code – GLM-5.3-Flash (max): by task length
Task lengthScoreTasks with a decided attempt
Short tasks8927 of 205
Medium tasks2421 of 168
Long tasks1541 of 192

Compared with other models

Geospatial Agent Index

Equal-weight average of the evaluation scores, 0 to 100 · Higher is better

  • Planned attempts still to come
Geospatial Agent IndexClaude Code – Claude Opus 5.5 (xhigh): 74* (partial coverage); Claude Code – Claude Opus 5.5 (high): 73* (partial coverage); Codex – GPT-6.1 Sol (xhigh): 72* (partial coverage); Codex – GPT-6.1 Sol (medium): 72* (partial coverage); Claude Code – Claude Opus 5.5 (medium): 71* (partial coverage); Codex – GPT-6.1 Sol (high): 70* (partial coverage); Claude Code – Claude Sonnet 5.5 (xhigh): 69* (partial coverage); Claude Code – Claude Sonnet 5.5 (high): 69* (partial coverage); Claude Code – Claude Haiku 5.5 (xhigh): 67* (partial coverage); Claude Code – Claude Haiku 5.5 (high): 66* (partial coverage); Codex – GPT-6 Luna (xhigh): 64* (partial coverage); Terminus-2 – GLM-5.2 (max): 63* (partial coverage); Claude Code – Claude Haiku 5.5 (medium): 63* (partial coverage); Claude Code – Claude Sonnet 5.5 (medium): 63* (partial coverage); Terminus-2 – GLM-5.2 (high): 61* (partial coverage); Terminus-2 – Kimi K2.7 Code (always on): 61* (partial coverage); Terminus-2 – DeepSeek V4 Flash (high): 60* (partial coverage); Terminus-2 – GLM-5.3 (max, default): 60* (partial coverage); Terminus-2 – Kimi K2.6 (always on): 60* (partial coverage); Terminus-2 – DeepSeek V4 Flash (max): 59* (partial coverage); Terminus-2 – DeepSeek V4 Pro (high): 59* (partial coverage); Terminus-2 – GLM-5.3 (low): 57* (partial coverage); Terminus-2 – GLM-5.2 (none): 55* (partial coverage); Terminus-2 – Gemma 4 26B A4B (thinking on): 47* (partial coverage); Terminus-2 – gpt-oss-120b (high): 39* (partial coverage); Terminus-2 – GLM-4.7-Flash (thinking on): 38* (partial coverage); Terminus-2 – gpt-oss-120b (low): 28* (partial coverage); Terminus-2 – Llama 3.3 70B (Non-reasoning): 8* (partial coverage)025507510074*Claude CodeClaude Opus5.5 (xhigh)73*Claude CodeClaude Opus5.5 (high)72*CodexGPT-6.1 Sol(xhigh)72*CodexGPT-6.1 Sol(medium)71*Claude CodeClaude Opus5.5 (medium)70*CodexGPT-6.1 Sol(high)69*Claude CodeClaude Sonnet5.5 (xhigh)69*Claude CodeClaude Sonnet5.5 (high)67*Claude CodeClaude Haiku5.5 (xhigh)66*Claude CodeClaude Haiku5.5 (high)64*CodexGPT-6 Luna(xhigh)63*Terminus-2GLM-5.2 (max)63*Claude CodeClaude Haiku5.5 (medium)63*Claude CodeClaude Sonnet5.5 (medium)61*Terminus-2GLM-5.2(high)61*Terminus-2Kimi K2.7Code (alwayson)60*Terminus-2DeepSeek V4Flash (high)60*Terminus-2GLM-5.3 (max,default)60*Terminus-2Kimi K2.6(always on)59*Terminus-2DeepSeek V4Flash (max)59*Terminus-2DeepSeek V4Pro (high)57*Terminus-2GLM-5.3 (low)55*Terminus-2GLM-5.2(none)47*Terminus-2Gemma 4 26BA4B (thinkingon)39*Terminus-2gpt-oss-120b(high)38*Terminus-2GLM-4.7-Flash(thinking on)28*Terminus-2gpt-oss-120b(low)8*Terminus-2Llama 3.3 70B(Non-reasoning)
How to read this chart

What this metric means. The equal-weight average of the 3 evaluation scores. Each evaluation score is the average pass@1 over that benchmark's tasks, from 0 to 100.

Partial coverage entries. An entry is ranked only when it has a first attempt on every task of every index component. Entries without that are marked partial coverage: they are listed apart with their coverage, for example "36 of 147 Earth-Bench V2 tasks", and are left out of the ranking, the index charts, the Pareto lines and the highlights. An entry becomes ranked as soon as its first attempts are complete.

Coverage hatch. A hatched bar, and an asterisk in tables, marks an entry that does not yet have results for every planned attempt. While attempts await review, the table gives the range the score could still reach.

First attempt only. Scores currently use each entry's first attempt on every task. The full protocol is 3 attempts; averages over 3 will replace these once every entry has them. An entry without a first attempt on every task yet is marked "partial: attempt 1 on n of N tasks".

Not shown: partial coverage or being added. Terminus-2 – Claude Sonnet 4.6 (adaptive, effort high) (36 of 147 Earth-Bench V2 tasks; GS-QA2 incomplete); Terminus-2 – Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite (low) (36 of 147 Earth-Bench V2 tasks; GS-QA2 incomplete); Terminus-2 – Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite (minimal) (36 of 147 Earth-Bench V2 tasks; GS-QA2 incomplete); Terminus-2 – Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite (high) (35 of 147 Earth-Bench V2 tasks; 170 of 173 GeoBenchX tasks; GS-QA2 incomplete); Terminus-2 – Gemini 3.1 Pro (preview) (low) (36 of 147 Earth-Bench V2 tasks; GS-QA2 incomplete); Terminus-2 – Gemini 3.1 Pro (preview) (high) (36 of 147 Earth-Bench V2 tasks; GS-QA2 incomplete); Terminus-2 – Gemini 3.8 Flash (high) (36 of 147 Earth-Bench V2 tasks; GS-QA2 incomplete); Terminus-2 – Gemini 3.8 Flash (low) (36 of 147 Earth-Bench V2 tasks; GS-QA2 incomplete); Terminus-2 – GLM-5.3-Flash (low) (61 of 245 GS-QA2 tasks); Terminus-2 – GLM-5.3-Flash (max) (49 of 245 GS-QA2 tasks); Terminus-2 – gpt-oss-20b (high) (172 of 173 GeoBenchX tasks); Terminus-2 – Kimi K3 (always on) (GS-QA2 incomplete); Terminus-2 – Qwen 3.8 27B (xhigh) (36 of 147 Earth-Bench V2 tasks; GeoBenchX incomplete; GS-QA2 incomplete); Claude Code – Claude Haiku 4.5 (thinking 32k) (59 of 147 Earth-Bench V2 tasks; 54 of 173 GeoBenchX tasks; GS-QA2 being added); Claude Code – GLM-5.2 (max) (35 of 147 Earth-Bench V2 tasks; 165 of 173 GeoBenchX tasks; GS-QA2 incomplete); Claude Code – GLM-5.3-Flash (max) (21 of 147 Earth-Bench V2 tasks; 114 of 173 GeoBenchX tasks; GS-QA2 incomplete); Codex – DeepSeek V4 Flash (high) (11 of 147 Earth-Bench V2 tasks; 101 of 173 GeoBenchX tasks; GS-QA2 incomplete); Codex – DeepSeek V4 Pro (high) (8 of 147 Earth-Bench V2 tasks; 40 of 173 GeoBenchX tasks; GS-QA2 incomplete); Kimi Code – Kimi K2.6 (always on) (64 of 147 Earth-Bench V2 tasks; GS-QA2 being added); Kimi Code – Kimi K2.7 Code (always on) (116 of 147 Earth-Bench V2 tasks; GS-QA2 being added); Claude Code – Claude Opus 5 (high) (120 of 147 Earth-Bench V2 tasks; 53 of 173 GeoBenchX tasks; GS-QA2 being added); Claude Code – Claude Sonnet 5 (high) (46 of 147 Earth-Bench V2 tasks; 68 of 173 GeoBenchX tasks; GS-QA2 being added); Claude Code – Claude Opus 4.8 (high) (54 of 147 Earth-Bench V2 tasks; 64 of 173 GeoBenchX tasks; GS-QA2 being added); Claude Code – Claude Opus 4.7 (high) (57 of 147 Earth-Bench V2 tasks; 65 of 173 GeoBenchX tasks; GS-QA2 being added).

Data table: Geospatial Agent Index
Geospatial Agent Index
ModelCreatorGeospatial Agent IndexRange while attempts are pendingBenchmarks coveredCoverage (attempts)
Claude Code – Claude Opus 5.5 (xhigh)Anthropic74*No pending judgements; coverage incomplete; 209 results awaiting review3 of 3565 of 859 planned attempts
Claude Code – Claude Opus 5.5 (high)Anthropic73*No pending judgements; coverage incomplete; 203 results awaiting review3 of 3565 of 859 planned attempts
Codex – GPT-6.1 Sol (xhigh)OpenAI72*No pending judgements; coverage incomplete; 211 results awaiting review3 of 3565 of 859 planned attempts
Codex – GPT-6.1 Sol (medium)OpenAI72*No pending judgements; coverage incomplete; 208 results awaiting review3 of 3565 of 859 planned attempts
Claude Code – Claude Opus 5.5 (medium)Anthropic71*No pending judgements; coverage incomplete; 201 results awaiting review3 of 3565 of 859 planned attempts
Codex – GPT-6.1 Sol (high)OpenAI70*No pending judgements; coverage incomplete; 207 results awaiting review3 of 3565 of 859 planned attempts (1 excluded)
Claude Code – Claude Sonnet 5.5 (xhigh)Anthropic69*No pending judgements; coverage incomplete; 196 results awaiting review3 of 3565 of 859 planned attempts
Claude Code – Claude Sonnet 5.5 (high)Anthropic69*No pending judgements; coverage incomplete; 186 results awaiting review3 of 3565 of 859 planned attempts
Claude Code – Claude Haiku 5.5 (xhigh)Anthropic67*No pending judgements; coverage incomplete; 184 results awaiting review3 of 3565 of 859 planned attempts
Claude Code – Claude Haiku 5.5 (high)Anthropic66*No pending judgements; coverage incomplete; 187 results awaiting review3 of 3565 of 859 planned attempts
Codex – GPT-6 Luna (xhigh)OpenAI64*No pending judgements; coverage incomplete; 177 results awaiting review3 of 3565 of 859 planned attempts
Terminus-2 – GLM-5.2 (max)Z.ai63*No pending judgements; coverage incomplete; 186 results awaiting review; 1 trace review declined by the judge3 of 3565 of 859 planned attempts
Claude Code – Claude Haiku 5.5 (medium)Anthropic63*No pending judgements; coverage incomplete; 177 results awaiting review3 of 3565 of 859 planned attempts
Claude Code – Claude Sonnet 5.5 (medium)Anthropic63*No pending judgements; coverage incomplete; 178 results awaiting review3 of 3565 of 859 planned attempts
Terminus-2 – GLM-5.2 (high)Z.ai61*No pending judgements; coverage incomplete; 177 results awaiting review; 1 trace review declined by the judge3 of 3565 of 859 planned attempts
Terminus-2 – Kimi K2.7 Code (always on)Moonshot AI61*No pending judgements; coverage incomplete; 182 results awaiting review; 1 trace review declined by the judge3 of 3565 of 859 planned attempts
Terminus-2 – DeepSeek V4 Flash (high)DeepSeek60*No pending judgements; coverage incomplete; 177 results awaiting review; 1 trace review declined by the judge3 of 3565 of 859 planned attempts
Terminus-2 – GLM-5.3 (max, default)Z.ai60*No pending judgements; coverage incomplete; 188 results awaiting review; 4 trace reviews declined by the judge3 of 3565 of 859 planned attempts
Terminus-2 – Kimi K2.6 (always on)Moonshot AI60*No pending judgements; coverage incomplete; 175 results awaiting review3 of 3565 of 859 planned attempts
Terminus-2 – DeepSeek V4 Flash (max)DeepSeek59*No pending judgements; coverage incomplete; 177 results awaiting review; 1 trace review declined by the judge3 of 3565 of 859 planned attempts
Terminus-2 – DeepSeek V4 Pro (high)DeepSeek59*No pending judgements; coverage incomplete; 172 results awaiting review; 2 trace reviews declined by the judge3 of 3565 of 859 planned attempts
Terminus-2 – GLM-5.3 (low)Z.ai57*No pending judgements; coverage incomplete; 180 results awaiting review; 5 trace reviews declined by the judge3 of 3565 of 859 planned attempts
Terminus-2 – GLM-5.2 (none)Z.ai55*No pending judgements; coverage incomplete; 161 results awaiting review3 of 3565 of 859 planned attempts
Terminus-2 – Gemma 4 26B A4B (thinking on)Google47*No pending judgements; coverage incomplete; 132 results awaiting review3 of 3565 of 859 planned attempts
Terminus-2 – gpt-oss-120b (high)OpenAI39*No pending judgements; coverage incomplete; 90 results awaiting review; 2 trace reviews declined by the judge3 of 3565 of 859 planned attempts
Terminus-2 – GLM-4.7-Flash (thinking on)Z.ai38*No pending judgements; coverage incomplete; 102 results awaiting review3 of 3565 of 859 planned attempts (1 excluded)
Terminus-2 – gpt-oss-120b (low)OpenAI28*No pending judgements; coverage incomplete; 65 results awaiting review3 of 3565 of 859 planned attempts
Terminus-2 – Llama 3.3 70B (Non-reasoning)Meta8*No pending judgements; coverage incomplete; 24 results awaiting review3 of 3565 of 859 planned attempts

Geospatial Agent Index vs. cost per task

Higher and further left is better

  • Planned attempts still to come
  • Most attractive quadrant
  • Pareto line
Geospatial Agent Index vs. cost per taskTerminus-2 – DeepSeek V4 Flash (max): Geospatial Agent Index 59.46, cost per task (usd) $0.062; Terminus-2 – DeepSeek V4 Flash (high): Geospatial Agent Index 60.39, cost per task (usd) $0.065; Terminus-2 – DeepSeek V4 Pro (high): Geospatial Agent Index 59.32, cost per task (usd) $0.308; Terminus-2 – Gemma 4 26B A4B (thinking on): Geospatial Agent Index 47.17, cost per task (usd) $0.021; Terminus-2 – GLM-4.7-Flash (thinking on): Geospatial Agent Index 37.67, cost per task (usd) $0.036; Terminus-2 – GLM-5.2 (high): Geospatial Agent Index 61.49, cost per task (usd) $0.240; Terminus-2 – GLM-5.2 (none): Geospatial Agent Index 55.15, cost per task (usd) $0.112; Terminus-2 – GLM-5.2 (max): Geospatial Agent Index 62.95, cost per task (usd) $0.347; Terminus-2 – GLM-5.3 (low): Geospatial Agent Index 57.48, cost per task (usd) $0.285; Terminus-2 – GLM-5.3 (max, default): Geospatial Agent Index 60.25, cost per task (usd) $0.405; Terminus-2 – gpt-oss-120b (low): Geospatial Agent Index 27.57, cost per task (usd) $0.0048; Terminus-2 – gpt-oss-120b (high): Geospatial Agent Index 39.44, cost per task (usd) $0.032; Terminus-2 – Kimi K2.6 (always on): Geospatial Agent Index 59.54, cost per task (usd) $0.100; Terminus-2 – Kimi K2.7 Code (always on): Geospatial Agent Index 61.28, cost per task (usd) $0.125; Terminus-2 – Llama 3.3 70B (Non-reasoning): Geospatial Agent Index 7.88, cost per task (usd) $0.022; Claude Code – Claude Opus 5.5 (medium): Geospatial Agent Index 70.91, cost per task (usd) $0.118; Claude Code – Claude Opus 5.5 (high): Geospatial Agent Index 73.03, cost per task (usd) $0.143; Claude Code – Claude Sonnet 5.5 (medium): Geospatial Agent Index 62.7, cost per task (usd) $0.048; Claude Code – Claude Sonnet 5.5 (high): Geospatial Agent Index 68.51, cost per task (usd) $0.058; Claude Code – Claude Haiku 5.5 (medium): Geospatial Agent Index 62.87, cost per task (usd) $0.0065; Claude Code – Claude Haiku 5.5 (high): Geospatial Agent Index 65.75, cost per task (usd) $0.0089; Claude Code – Claude Opus 5.5 (xhigh): Geospatial Agent Index 74.33, cost per task (usd) $0.285; Claude Code – Claude Sonnet 5.5 (xhigh): Geospatial Agent Index 69.22, cost per task (usd) $0.123; Claude Code – Claude Haiku 5.5 (xhigh): Geospatial Agent Index 67.08, cost per task (usd) $0.018; Codex – GPT-6.1 Sol (medium): Geospatial Agent Index 71.83, cost per task (usd) $0.049; Codex – GPT-6.1 Sol (high): Geospatial Agent Index 70.01, cost per task (usd) $0.062; Codex – GPT-6.1 Sol (xhigh): Geospatial Agent Index 72.01, cost per task (usd) $0.091; Codex – GPT-6 Luna (xhigh): Geospatial Agent Index 64.29, cost per task (usd) $0.0076Most attractive quadrant0102030405060708090$0.002$0.005$0.01$0.02$0.05$0.10$0.20$0.50Cost per task (USD) (log scale)Geospatial Agent IndexClaude Code – Claude Opus 5.5 (xhigh)Claude Code – Claude Opus 5.5 (high)Codex – GPT-6.1 Sol (xhigh)Codex – GPT-6.1 Sol (medium)Claude Code – Claude Opus 5.5 (medium)Codex – GPT-6.1 Sol (high)Claude Code – Claude Sonnet 5.5 (xhigh)Claude Code – Claude Sonnet 5.5 (high)Claude Code – Claude Haiku 5.5 (xhigh)Claude Code – Claude Haiku 5.5 (high)Codex – GPT-6 Luna (xhigh)Terminus-2 – GLM-5.2 (max)Claude Code – Claude Haiku 5.5 (medium)Claude Code – Claude Sonnet 5.5 (medium)Terminus-2 – GLM-5.2 (high)Terminus-2 – Kimi K2.7 Code (always on)Terminus-2 – DeepSeek V4 Flash (high)Terminus-2 – GLM-5.3 (max, default)Terminus-2 – Kimi K2.6 (always on)Terminus-2 – DeepSeek V4 Flash (max)Terminus-2 – DeepSeek V4 Pro (high)Terminus-2 – GLM-5.3 (low)Terminus-2 – GLM-5.2 (none)Terminus-2 – Gemma 4 26B A4B (thinking on)Terminus-2 – gpt-oss-120b (high)Terminus-2 – GLM-4.7-Flash (thinking on)Terminus-2 – gpt-oss-120b (low)Terminus-2 – Llama 3.3 70B (Non-reasoning)
How to read this chart

Partial coverage. Not plotted and not on the Pareto line; listed in the table: Terminus-2 – Claude Sonnet 4.6 (adaptive, effort high), Terminus-2 – Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite (low), Terminus-2 – Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite (minimal), Terminus-2 – Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite (high), Terminus-2 – Gemini 3.1 Pro (preview) (low), Terminus-2 – Gemini 3.1 Pro (preview) (high), Terminus-2 – Gemini 3.8 Flash (high), Terminus-2 – Gemini 3.8 Flash (low), Terminus-2 – GLM-5.3-Flash (low), Terminus-2 – GLM-5.3-Flash (max), Terminus-2 – gpt-oss-20b (high), Terminus-2 – Kimi K3 (always on), Terminus-2 – Qwen 3.8 27B (xhigh), Claude Code – Claude Haiku 4.5 (thinking 32k), Claude Code – GLM-5.2 (max), Claude Code – GLM-5.3-Flash (max), Codex – DeepSeek V4 Flash (high), Codex – DeepSeek V4 Pro (high), Kimi Code – Kimi K2.6 (always on), Kimi Code – Kimi K2.7 Code (always on), Claude Code – Claude Opus 5 (high), Claude Code – Claude Sonnet 5 (high), Claude Code – Claude Opus 4.8 (high), Claude Code – Claude Opus 4.7 (high).

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 model configuration. 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
Terminus-2 – Claude Sonnet 4.6 (adaptive, effort high)40* (partial: attempt 1 on 209 of 565 tasks)$0.291Not plotted: partial coverage (36 of 147 Earth-Bench V2 tasks; GS-QA2 incomplete)
Terminus-2 – DeepSeek V4 Flash (max)59*$0.062No
Terminus-2 – DeepSeek V4 Flash (high)60*$0.065No
Terminus-2 – DeepSeek V4 Pro (high)59*$0.308No
Terminus-2 – Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite (low)37* (partial: attempt 1 on 209 of 565 tasks)$0.013Not plotted: partial coverage (36 of 147 Earth-Bench V2 tasks; GS-QA2 incomplete)
Terminus-2 – Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite (minimal)29* (partial: attempt 1 on 209 of 565 tasks)$0.0057Not plotted: partial coverage (36 of 147 Earth-Bench V2 tasks; GS-QA2 incomplete)
Terminus-2 – Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite (high)40* (partial: attempt 1 on 205 of 565 tasks)$0.021Not plotted: partial coverage (35 of 147 Earth-Bench V2 tasks; 170 of 173 GeoBenchX tasks; GS-QA2 incomplete)
Terminus-2 – Gemini 3.1 Pro (preview) (low)44* (partial: attempt 1 on 209 of 565 tasks)$0.061Not plotted: partial coverage (36 of 147 Earth-Bench V2 tasks; GS-QA2 incomplete)
Terminus-2 – Gemini 3.1 Pro (preview) (high)43* (partial: attempt 1 on 209 of 565 tasks)$0.275Not plotted: partial coverage (36 of 147 Earth-Bench V2 tasks; GS-QA2 incomplete)
Terminus-2 – Gemini 3.8 Flash (high)34* (partial: attempt 1 on 209 of 565 tasks)$0.336Not plotted: partial coverage (36 of 147 Earth-Bench V2 tasks; GS-QA2 incomplete)
Terminus-2 – Gemini 3.8 Flash (low)49* (partial: attempt 1 on 209 of 565 tasks)$0.147Not plotted: partial coverage (36 of 147 Earth-Bench V2 tasks; GS-QA2 incomplete)
Terminus-2 – Gemma 4 26B A4B (thinking on)47*$0.021No
Terminus-2 – GLM-4.7-Flash (thinking on)38*$0.036No
Terminus-2 – GLM-5.2 (high)61*$0.240No
Terminus-2 – GLM-5.2 (none)55*$0.112No
Terminus-2 – GLM-5.2 (max)63*$0.347No
Terminus-2 – GLM-5.3-Flash (low)52* (partial: attempt 1 on 381 of 565 tasks)$0.046Not plotted: partial coverage (61 of 245 GS-QA2 tasks)
Terminus-2 – GLM-5.3-Flash (max)46* (partial: attempt 1 on 369 of 565 tasks)$0.067Not plotted: partial coverage (49 of 245 GS-QA2 tasks)
Terminus-2 – GLM-5.3 (low)57*$0.285No
Terminus-2 – GLM-5.3 (max, default)60*$0.405No
Terminus-2 – gpt-oss-120b (low)28*$0.0048Yes
Terminus-2 – gpt-oss-120b (high)39*$0.032No
Terminus-2 – gpt-oss-20b (high)28*$0.017Not plotted: partial coverage (172 of 173 GeoBenchX tasks)
Terminus-2 – Kimi K2.6 (always on)60*$0.100No
Terminus-2 – Kimi K2.7 Code (always on)61*$0.125No
Terminus-2 – Kimi K3 (always on)58* (partial: attempt 1 on 320 of 565 tasks)$0.336Not plotted: partial coverage (GS-QA2 incomplete)
Terminus-2 – Llama 3.3 70B (Non-reasoning)8*$0.022No
Terminus-2 – Qwen 3.8 27B (xhigh)28* (partial: attempt 1 on 36 of 565 tasks)$0.051Not plotted: partial coverage (36 of 147 Earth-Bench V2 tasks; GeoBenchX incomplete; GS-QA2 incomplete)
Claude Code – Claude Haiku 4.5 (thinking 32k)39* (partial: attempt 1 on 113 of 565 tasks)$0.150Not plotted: partial coverage (59 of 147 Earth-Bench V2 tasks; 54 of 173 GeoBenchX tasks; GS-QA2 being added)
Claude Code – GLM-5.2 (max)53* (partial: attempt 1 on 200 of 565 tasks)$0.437Not plotted: partial coverage (35 of 147 Earth-Bench V2 tasks; 165 of 173 GeoBenchX tasks; GS-QA2 incomplete)
Claude Code – GLM-5.3-Flash (max)41* (partial: attempt 1 on 135 of 565 tasks)$0.139Not plotted: partial coverage (21 of 147 Earth-Bench V2 tasks; 114 of 173 GeoBenchX tasks; GS-QA2 incomplete)
Codex – DeepSeek V4 Flash (high)46* (partial: attempt 1 on 112 of 565 tasks)$0.034Not plotted: partial coverage (11 of 147 Earth-Bench V2 tasks; 101 of 173 GeoBenchX tasks; GS-QA2 incomplete)
Codex – DeepSeek V4 Pro (high)40* (partial: attempt 1 on 48 of 565 tasks)$0.745Not plotted: partial coverage (8 of 147 Earth-Bench V2 tasks; 40 of 173 GeoBenchX tasks; GS-QA2 incomplete)
Kimi Code – Kimi K2.6 (always on)48* (partial: attempt 1 on 237 of 565 tasks)$0.300Not plotted: partial coverage (64 of 147 Earth-Bench V2 tasks; GS-QA2 being added)
Kimi Code – Kimi K2.7 Code (always on)57* (partial: attempt 1 on 289 of 565 tasks)$0.300Not plotted: partial coverage (116 of 147 Earth-Bench V2 tasks; GS-QA2 being added)
Claude Code – Claude Opus 5.5 (medium)71*$0.118No
Claude Code – Claude Opus 5.5 (high)73*$0.143Yes
Claude Code – Claude Sonnet 5.5 (medium)63*$0.048No
Claude Code – Claude Sonnet 5.5 (high)69*$0.058No
Claude Code – Claude Haiku 5.5 (medium)63*$0.0065Yes
Claude Code – Claude Haiku 5.5 (high)66*$0.0089Yes
Claude Code – Claude Opus 5.5 (xhigh)74*$0.285Yes
Claude Code – Claude Sonnet 5.5 (xhigh)69*$0.123No
Claude Code – Claude Haiku 5.5 (xhigh)67*$0.018Yes
Claude Code – Claude Opus 5 (high)61* (partial: attempt 1 on 173 of 565 tasks)$0.518Not plotted: partial coverage (120 of 147 Earth-Bench V2 tasks; 53 of 173 GeoBenchX tasks; GS-QA2 being added)
Claude Code – Claude Sonnet 5 (high)55* (partial: attempt 1 on 114 of 565 tasks)$0.334Not plotted: partial coverage (46 of 147 Earth-Bench V2 tasks; 68 of 173 GeoBenchX tasks; GS-QA2 being added)
Claude Code – Claude Opus 4.8 (high)48* (partial: attempt 1 on 118 of 565 tasks)$0.461Not plotted: partial coverage (54 of 147 Earth-Bench V2 tasks; 64 of 173 GeoBenchX tasks; GS-QA2 being added)
Claude Code – Claude Opus 4.7 (high)54* (partial: attempt 1 on 122 of 565 tasks)$0.544Not plotted: partial coverage (57 of 147 Earth-Bench V2 tasks; 65 of 173 GeoBenchX tasks; GS-QA2 being added)
Codex – GPT-6.1 Sol (medium)72*$0.049Yes
Codex – GPT-6.1 Sol (high)70*$0.062No
Codex – GPT-6.1 Sol (xhigh)72*$0.091Yes
Codex – GPT-6 Luna (xhigh)64*$0.0076Yes

Head-to-head comparisons

Specification and settings

Developer
Z.ai
Context window
1,048,576 tokens
Image input
Yes
Reasoning setting
max
Temperature
0.6
Maximum output tokens
65,536
Input price per 1M tokens
$0.15
Cached input price per 1M tokens
$0.030
Output price per 1M tokens
$0.50

Why this model was chosen: model selection.