Terminus-2 – Claude Sonnet 4.6 (adaptive, effort high) vs. Codex – GPT-6 Sol (high): geospatial agent comparison
Comparison between Terminus-2 – Claude Sonnet 4.6 (adaptive, effort high) and Codex – GPT-6 Sol (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 | Terminus-2 – Claude Sonnet 4.6 (adaptive, effort high) | Codex – GPT-6 Sol (high) |
|---|---|---|
| Geospatial Agent Index | 58* (partial: attempt 1 on 177 of 488 tasks) | 80* (partial: attempt 1 on 475 of 488 tasks) |
| Earth-Bench V2 score | 59 | 76 |
| GeoBenchX score | 57 | 75 |
| GS-QA2 score | No data | 89 |
| GeoAgentBench score (guided GIS workflow; outside the index) | 96 | 100 |
| GeoAnalystBench score (guided GIS workflow; outside the index) | 100 | 100 |
| Raster and remote sensing score | 58 | 84 |
| Vector and overlay score | 40 | 86 |
| Climate and time series score | 73 | 80 |
| Spatial statistics and interpolation score | 46 | 33 |
| Mapping and cartography score | 75 | 85 |
| Recognising infeasible requests score | 40 | 79 |
| Cost per task | $0.25 | $0.080 |
| Time per task | 3.4 min | 1.7 min |
| Tokens per attempt | 76k | 144k |
| Turns per attempt | 6.9 | 8.6 |
| Attempts decided | 177 | 460 |
| Input price per 1M tokens | $3.00 | $2.00 |
| Output price per 1M tokens | $15.00 | $10.00 |
| Context window | 1,000,000 | No data |
| Image input | Yes | No data |
| Developer | Anthropic | OpenAI |
Charts
Partial coverage. Terminus-2 – Claude Sonnet 4.6 (adaptive, effort high): 27 of 117 Earth-Bench V2 tasks; GS-QA2 incomplete; Codex – GPT-6 Sol (high): 116 of 117 Earth-Bench V2 tasks; 138 of 150 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. 2 entries without a first attempt on every index task. What is still running is on the models page.
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. 2 entries without a first attempt on every index task. What is still running is on the models page.
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, Terminus-2 – Claude Sonnet 4.6 (adaptive, effort high) or Codex – GPT-6 Sol (high)?
Which is cheaper per task, Terminus-2 – Claude Sonnet 4.6 (adaptive, effort high) or Codex – GPT-6 Sol (high)?
Which writes fewer output tokens per task, Terminus-2 – Claude Sonnet 4.6 (adaptive, effort high) or Codex – GPT-6 Sol (high)?
Which has the larger context window, Terminus-2 – Claude Sonnet 4.6 (adaptive, effort high) or Codex – GPT-6 Sol (high)?
More: Terminus-2 – Claude Sonnet 4.6 (adaptive, effort high) · Codex – GPT-6 Sol (high) · all comparisons