Terminus-2 – Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite (low) vs. Codex – GPT-6.1 Sol (high): geospatial agent comparison
Comparison between Terminus-2 – Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite (low) and Codex – GPT-6.1 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 – Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite (low) | Codex – GPT-6.1 Sol (high) |
|---|---|---|
| Geospatial Agent Index | 49 (attempts per task: 3) | 80 (attempts per task: 3) |
| GeoAgentBench score | 52 | 100 |
| GeoBenchX score | 46 | 66 |
| Earth-Bench score | 40 | 54 |
| GeoAnalystBench score | 60 | 100 |
| Raster and remote sensing score | 46 | 72 |
| Vector and overlay score | 46 | 78 |
| Networks and routing score | 53 | 100 |
| Climate and time series score | 56 | 79 |
| Spatial statistics and interpolation score | 29 | 61 |
| Mapping and cartography score | 50 | 76 |
| Recognising infeasible requests score | 48 | 68 |
| Cost per task | $0.012 | $0.080 |
| Time per task | 1.0 min | 1.9 min |
| Tokens per attempt | 37k | 145k |
| Turns per attempt | 5.1 | 7.8 |
| Attempts decided | 870 | 870 |
| Input price per 1M tokens | $0.25 | $2.00 |
| Output price per 1M tokens | $1.50 | $10.00 |
| Context window | 1,048,576 | No data |
| Image input | Yes | No data |
| Developer | OpenAI |
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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Codex – GPT-6.1 Sol (high) | OpenAI | 80 (attempts per task: 3) | No pending judgements | 4 of 4 | 870 of 870 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 |
Codex – GPT-6.1 Sol (high)
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 | |
| Codex – GPT-6.1 Sol (high) | OpenAI | $0.080 | 870 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 – Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite (low) | 1.0 min | 870 of 870 planned attempts | |
| Codex – GPT-6.1 Sol (high) | OpenAI | 1.9 min | 870 of 870 planned attempts |
Frequently asked questions
- Which scores higher on the Geospatial Agent Index, Terminus-2 – Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite (low) or Codex – GPT-6.1 Sol (high)?
- Codex – GPT-6.1 Sol (high), at 80 against 49 for Terminus-2 – Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite (low). Terminus-2 – Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite (low): 870 of 870 planned attempts. Codex – GPT-6.1 Sol (high): 870 of 870 planned attempts.
- Which is cheaper per task, Terminus-2 – Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite (low) or Codex – GPT-6.1 Sol (high)?
- Terminus-2 – Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite (low), at $0.012 against $0.080 for Codex – GPT-6.1 Sol (high).
- Which is faster per task, Terminus-2 – Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite (low) or Codex – GPT-6.1 Sol (high)?
- Terminus-2 – Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite (low), at 1.0 min against 1.9 min for Codex – GPT-6.1 Sol (high).
- Which has the larger context window, Terminus-2 – Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite (low) or Codex – GPT-6.1 Sol (high)?
- Not known yet: Codex – GPT-6.1 Sol (high) has no context window data.
More: Terminus-2 – Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite (low) · Codex – GPT-6.1 Sol (high) · all comparisons