Terminus-2 – Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite (high) vs. Terminus-2 – GLM-5.3 (low): geospatial agent comparison
Comparison between Terminus-2 – Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite (high) and Terminus-2 – GLM-5.3 (low) 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 – Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite (high) | Terminus-2 – GLM-5.3 (low) |
|---|---|---|
| Geospatial Agent Index | 59* (attempts per task: 3) | 72* (attempts per task: 1) |
| GeoAgentBench score | 69 | 94 |
| GeoBenchX score | 53 | 54 |
| Earth-Bench score | 43 | 40 |
| GeoAnalystBench score | 70 | 100 |
| Raster and remote sensing score | 54 | 67 |
| Vector and overlay score | 65 | 82 |
| Networks and routing score | 60 | 100 |
| Climate and time series score | 57 | 67 |
| Spatial statistics and interpolation score | 46 | 48 |
| Mapping and cartography score | 66 | 74 |
| Recognising infeasible requests score | 48 | 41 |
| Cost per task | $0.021 | $0.251 |
| Time per task | 1.9 min | 6.8 min |
| Tokens per attempt | 52k | 205k |
| Turns per attempt | 5.9 | 10.8 |
| Attempts decided | 864 | 285 |
| Input price per 1M tokens | $0.25 | $1.40 |
| Output price per 1M tokens | $1.50 | $4.40 |
| Context window | 1,048,576 | 1,048,576 |
| Image input | Yes | No |
| Developer | Z.ai |
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 – GLM-5.3 (low) | Z.ai | 72* (attempts per task: 1) | 70 to 72 | 4 of 4 | 285 of 290 planned attempts |
| Terminus-2 – Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite (high) | 59* (attempts per task: 3) | 59 to 59 | 4 of 4 | 864 of 870 planned attempts (6 excluded) |
Terminus-2 – GLM-5.3 (low)
Terminus-2 – Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite (high)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 – Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite (high) | $0.021 | 865 of 870 planned attempts (6 excluded) | |
| Terminus-2 – GLM-5.3 (low) | Z.ai | $0.251 | 290 of 290 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 – Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite (high) | 1.9 min | 865 of 870 planned attempts (6 excluded) | |
| Terminus-2 – GLM-5.3 (low) | Z.ai | 6.8 min | 290 of 290 planned attempts |
Frequently asked questions
- Which scores higher on the Geospatial Agent Index, Terminus-2 – Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite (high) or Terminus-2 – GLM-5.3 (low)?
- Terminus-2 – GLM-5.3 (low), at 72 against 59 for Terminus-2 – Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite (high). Terminus-2 – Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite (high): 864 of 870 planned attempts (6 excluded). Terminus-2 – GLM-5.3 (low): 285 of 290 planned attempts. Coverage is partial; scores can change as more attempts are decided.
- Which is cheaper per task, Terminus-2 – Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite (high) or Terminus-2 – GLM-5.3 (low)?
- Terminus-2 – Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite (high), at $0.021 against $0.251 for Terminus-2 – GLM-5.3 (low).
- Which is faster per task, Terminus-2 – Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite (high) or Terminus-2 – GLM-5.3 (low)?
- Terminus-2 – Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite (high), at 1.9 min against 6.8 min for Terminus-2 – GLM-5.3 (low).
- Which has the larger context window, Terminus-2 – Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite (high) or Terminus-2 – GLM-5.3 (low)?
- They are level, at 1,048,576 tokens.
More: Terminus-2 – Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite (high) · Terminus-2 – GLM-5.3 (low) · all comparisons