Terminus-2 – Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite (low) vs. Claude Code – Claude Opus 5.5 (xhigh): geospatial agent comparison
Comparison between Terminus-2 – Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite (low) and Claude Code – Claude Opus 5.5 (xhigh) 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 (low) | Claude Code – Claude Opus 5.5 (xhigh) |
|---|---|---|
| Geospatial Agent Index | 49 (attempts per task: 3) | 82 (attempts per task: 1) |
| GeoAgentBench score | 52 | 98 |
| GeoBenchX score | 46 | 69 |
| Earth-Bench score | 40 | 62 |
| GeoAnalystBench score | 60 | 100 |
| Raster and remote sensing score | 46 | 83 |
| Vector and overlay score | 46 | 89 |
| Networks and routing score | 53 | 100 |
| Climate and time series score | 56 | 75 |
| Spatial statistics and interpolation score | 29 | 71 |
| Mapping and cartography score | 50 | 77 |
| Recognising infeasible requests score | 48 | 62 |
| Cost per task | $0.012 | $0.375 |
| Time per task | 1.0 min | 2.1 min |
| Tokens per attempt | 37k | 266k |
| Turns per attempt | 5.1 | 8.7 |
| Attempts decided | 870 | 290 |
| Input price per 1M tokens | $0.25 | $4.00 |
| Output price per 1M tokens | $1.50 | $20.00 |
| Context window | 1,048,576 | No data |
| Image input | Yes | No data |
| 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Claude Code – Claude Opus 5.5 (xhigh) | Anthropic | 82 (attempts per task: 1) | No pending judgements | 4 of 4 | 290 of 290 planned attempts |
| Terminus-2 – Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite (low) | 49 (attempts per task: 3) | No pending judgements | 4 of 4 | 870 of 870 planned attempts |
Claude Code – Claude Opus 5.5 (xhigh)
Terminus-2 – Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite (low)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 (low) | $0.012 | 870 of 870 planned attempts | |
| Claude Code – Claude Opus 5.5 (xhigh) | Anthropic | $0.375 | 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 (low) | 1.0 min | 870 of 870 planned attempts | |
| Claude Code – Claude Opus 5.5 (xhigh) | Anthropic | 2.1 min | 290 of 290 planned attempts |
Frequently asked questions
- Which scores higher on the Geospatial Agent Index, Terminus-2 – Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite (low) or Claude Code – Claude Opus 5.5 (xhigh)?
- Claude Code – Claude Opus 5.5 (xhigh), at 82 against 49 for Terminus-2 – Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite (low). Terminus-2 – Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite (low): 870 of 870 planned attempts. Claude Code – Claude Opus 5.5 (xhigh): 290 of 290 planned attempts.
- Which is cheaper per task, Terminus-2 – Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite (low) or Claude Code – Claude Opus 5.5 (xhigh)?
- Terminus-2 – Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite (low), at $0.012 against $0.375 for Claude Code – Claude Opus 5.5 (xhigh).
- Which is faster per task, Terminus-2 – Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite (low) or Claude Code – Claude Opus 5.5 (xhigh)?
- Terminus-2 – Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite (low), at 1.0 min against 2.1 min for Claude Code – Claude Opus 5.5 (xhigh).
- Which has the larger context window, Terminus-2 – Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite (low) or Claude Code – Claude Opus 5.5 (xhigh)?
- Not known yet: Claude Code – Claude Opus 5.5 (xhigh) has no context window data.
More: Terminus-2 – Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite (low) · Claude Code – Claude Opus 5.5 (xhigh) · all comparisons