Terminus-2 – Claude Sonnet 4.6 (adaptive, effort high) vs. Terminus-2 – Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite (minimal): geospatial agent comparison
Comparison between Terminus-2 – Claude Sonnet 4.6 (adaptive, effort high) and Terminus-2 – Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite (minimal) 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) | Terminus-2 – Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite (minimal) |
|---|---|---|
| Geospatial Agent Index | 75* (attempts per task: 1.2) | 34* (attempts per task: 3) |
| GeoAgentBench score | 97 | 33 |
| GeoBenchX score | 52 | 40 |
| Earth-Bench score | 56 | 28 |
| GeoAnalystBench score | 95 | 37 |
| Raster and remote sensing score | 73 | 30 |
| Vector and overlay score | 70 | 22 |
| Networks and routing score | 100 | 0 |
| Climate and time series score | 83 | 43 |
| Spatial statistics and interpolation score | 71 | 17 |
| Mapping and cartography score | 76 | 39 |
| Recognising infeasible requests score | 30 | 50 |
| Cost per task | $0.272 | $0.0056 |
| Time per task | 3.6 min | 0.5 min |
| Tokens per attempt | 70k | 18k |
| Turns per attempt | 6.3 | 3.5 |
| Attempts decided | 335 | 869 |
| Input price per 1M tokens | $3.00 | $0.25 |
| Output price per 1M tokens | $15.00 | $1.50 |
| Context window | 1,000,000 | 1,048,576 |
| Image input | Yes | Yes |
| Developer | Anthropic |
Charts
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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Terminus-2 – Claude Sonnet 4.6 (adaptive, effort high) | Anthropic | 75* (attempts per task: 1.2) | 74 to 75 | 4 of 4 | 335 of 870 planned attempts (138 excluded) |
| Terminus-2 – Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite (minimal) | 34* (attempts per task: 3) | No pending judgements; coverage incomplete | 4 of 4 | 869 of 870 planned attempts |
Terminus-2 – Claude Sonnet 4.6 (adaptive, effort high)
Terminus-2 – Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite (minimal)Cost per task
Average cost per task (USD) · Lower is better
First eight selected entries in metric order. Full results in table view.
Data table: Cost per task
| Model | Creator | Cost per task | Coverage (attempts) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Terminus-2 – Claude Sonnet 4.6 (adaptive, effort high) | Anthropic | $0.272 | 343 of 870 planned attempts (138 excluded) |
| Terminus-2 – Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite (minimal) | $0.0056 | 869 of 870 planned attempts |
Time per task
Average agent wall time per task · Lower is better
First eight selected entries in metric order. Full results in table view.
Data table: Time per task
| Model | Creator | Time per task | Coverage (attempts) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Terminus-2 – Claude Sonnet 4.6 (adaptive, effort high) | Anthropic | 3.6 min | 343 of 870 planned attempts (138 excluded) |
| Terminus-2 – Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite (minimal) | 0.5 min | 869 of 870 planned attempts |
Frequently asked questions
- Which scores higher on the Geospatial Agent Index, Terminus-2 – Claude Sonnet 4.6 (adaptive, effort high) or Terminus-2 – Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite (minimal)?
- Terminus-2 – Claude Sonnet 4.6 (adaptive, effort high), at 75 against 34 for Terminus-2 – Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite (minimal). Terminus-2 – Claude Sonnet 4.6 (adaptive, effort high): 335 of 870 planned attempts (138 excluded). Terminus-2 – Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite (minimal): 869 of 870 planned attempts. Coverage is partial; scores can change as more attempts are decided.
- Which is cheaper per task, Terminus-2 – Claude Sonnet 4.6 (adaptive, effort high) or Terminus-2 – Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite (minimal)?
- Terminus-2 – Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite (minimal), at $0.0056 against $0.272 for Terminus-2 – Claude Sonnet 4.6 (adaptive, effort high).
- Which is faster per task, Terminus-2 – Claude Sonnet 4.6 (adaptive, effort high) or Terminus-2 – Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite (minimal)?
- Terminus-2 – Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite (minimal), at 0.5 min against 3.6 min for Terminus-2 – Claude Sonnet 4.6 (adaptive, effort high).
- Which has the larger context window, Terminus-2 – Claude Sonnet 4.6 (adaptive, effort high) or Terminus-2 – Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite (minimal)?
- Terminus-2 – Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite (minimal), at 1,048,576 tokens against 1,000,000 tokens for Terminus-2 – Claude Sonnet 4.6 (adaptive, effort high).
More: Terminus-2 – Claude Sonnet 4.6 (adaptive, effort high) · Terminus-2 – Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite (minimal) · all comparisons