Claude Code – GLM-4.7-Flash (thinking on) vs. Claude Code – Claude Opus 4.7 (high): geospatial agent comparison
Comparison between Claude Code – GLM-4.7-Flash (thinking on) and Claude Code – Claude Opus 4.7 (high) on the Geospatial Agent Index, each benchmark, cost, time and token use, from the same tasks, agent and limits. Methodology.
Side by side
| Metric | Claude Code – GLM-4.7-Flash (thinking on) | Claude Code – Claude Opus 4.7 (high) |
|---|---|---|
| Geospatial Agent Index | 27* (partial: attempt 1 on 52 of 565 tasks) | 65* (partial: attempt 1 on 496 of 565 tasks) |
| Earth-Bench V2 score | 20 | 60 |
| GeoBenchX score | 33 | 62 |
| GS-QA2 score | No data | 73 |
| GeoAgentBench score (guided GIS workflow; outside the index) | No data | 97 |
| GeoAnalystBench score (guided GIS workflow; outside the index) | No data | 100 |
| Raster and remote sensing score | 15 | 71 |
| Vector and overlay score | No data | 66 |
| Networks and routing score | No data | No data |
| Climate and time series score | 0 | 64 |
| Spatial statistics and interpolation score | 20 | 31 |
| Mapping and cartography score | 64 | 79 |
| Recognising infeasible requests score | 26 | 52 |
| Cost per task | $0.089 | $0.379 |
| Time per task | 13.6 min | 1.3 min |
| Tokens per attempt | 1.37M | 267k |
| Turns per attempt | 35.5 | 7.5 |
| Attempts decided | 49 | 496 |
| Input price per 1M tokens | $0.06 | $5.00 |
| Output price per 1M tokens | $0.40 | $25.00 |
| Context window | 131,072 | No data |
| Image input | No | No data |
| Developer | Z.ai | Anthropic |
Charts
Partial coverage. Claude Code – GLM-4.7-Flash (thinking on): 10 of 147 Earth-Bench V2 tasks; 42 of 173 GeoBenchX tasks; GS-QA2 incomplete; Claude Code – Claude Opus 4.7 (high): 129 of 147 Earth-Bench V2 tasks; 122 of 173 GeoBenchX tasks. Grey placeholders identify these entries in the index, cost and output token charts; their height does not represent a value. Comparable bars appear when first-attempt coverage is complete. Their available results remain in the side-by-side table.
Geospatial Agent Index
Equal-weight average of the evaluation scores, 0 to 100 · Higher is better
First eight selected entries in metric order. Full results in table view.
Data table: Geospatial Agent Index
| Model | Creator | Geospatial Agent Index | Range while attempts are pending | Benchmarks covered | Coverage (attempts) |
|---|
Cost per task
Average cost per task (USD) · Lower is better
First eight selected entries in metric order. Full results in table view.
How to read this chart
Not shown: partial coverage. Claude Code – GLM-4.7-Flash (thinking on), Claude Code – Claude Opus 4.7 (high).
Data table: Cost per task
| Model | Creator | Cost per task | Coverage (attempts) |
|---|
Output tokens per task
Average output tokens per attempt, reasoning included · Lower is better
First eight selected entries in metric order. Full results in table view.
How to read this chart
Not shown: partial coverage. Claude Code – GLM-4.7-Flash (thinking on), Claude Code – Claude Opus 4.7 (high).
Data table: Output tokens per task
| Model | Creator | Output tokens per task | Coverage (attempts) |
|---|
Frequently asked questions
Which scores higher on the Geospatial Agent Index, Claude Code – GLM-4.7-Flash (thinking on) or Claude Code – Claude Opus 4.7 (high)?
Which is cheaper per task, Claude Code – GLM-4.7-Flash (thinking on) or Claude Code – Claude Opus 4.7 (high)?
Which writes fewer output tokens per task, Claude Code – GLM-4.7-Flash (thinking on) or Claude Code – Claude Opus 4.7 (high)?
Which has the larger context window, Claude Code – GLM-4.7-Flash (thinking on) or Claude Code – Claude Opus 4.7 (high)?
More: Claude Code – GLM-4.7-Flash (thinking on) · Claude Code – Claude Opus 4.7 (high) · all comparisons