Terminus-2 – Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite (low) vs. Terminus-2 – GLM-5.2 (high): geospatial agent comparison
Comparison between Terminus-2 – Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite (low) and Terminus-2 – GLM-5.2 (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) | Terminus-2 – GLM-5.2 (high) |
|---|---|---|
| Geospatial Agent Index | 49 (attempts per task: 3) | 72* (attempts per task: 1.1) |
| GeoAgentBench score | 52 | 97 |
| GeoBenchX score | 46 | 55 |
| Earth-Bench score | 40 | 38 |
| GeoAnalystBench score | 60 | 100 |
| Raster and remote sensing score | 46 | 69 |
| Vector and overlay score | 46 | 83 |
| Networks and routing score | 53 | 100 |
| Climate and time series score | 56 | 62 |
| Spatial statistics and interpolation score | 29 | 65 |
| Mapping and cartography score | 50 | 72 |
| Recognising infeasible requests score | 48 | 41 |
| Cost per task | $0.012 | $0.231 |
| Time per task | 1.0 min | 5.9 min |
| Tokens per attempt | 37k | 318k |
| Turns per attempt | 5.1 | 11.9 |
| Attempts decided | 870 | 310 |
| Input price per 1M tokens | $0.25 | $1.40 |
| Output price per 1M tokens | $1.50 | $4.40 |
| Context window | 1,048,576 | 262,144 |
| 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-5.2 (high) | Z.ai | 72* (attempts per task: 1.1) | 71 to 72 | 4 of 4 | 310 of 870 planned attempts (1 excluded) |
| Terminus-2 – Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite (low) | 49 (attempts per task: 3) | No pending judgements | 4 of 4 | 870 of 870 planned attempts |
Terminus-2 – GLM-5.2 (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 | |
| Terminus-2 – GLM-5.2 (high) | Z.ai | $0.231 | 320 of 870 planned attempts (1 excluded) |
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 | |
| Terminus-2 – GLM-5.2 (high) | Z.ai | 5.9 min | 320 of 870 planned attempts (1 excluded) |
Frequently asked questions
- Which scores higher on the Geospatial Agent Index, Terminus-2 – Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite (low) or Terminus-2 – GLM-5.2 (high)?
- Terminus-2 – GLM-5.2 (high), at 72 against 49 for Terminus-2 – Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite (low). Terminus-2 – Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite (low): 870 of 870 planned attempts. Terminus-2 – GLM-5.2 (high): 310 of 870 planned attempts (1 excluded). Coverage is partial; scores can change as more attempts are decided.
- Which is cheaper per task, Terminus-2 – Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite (low) or Terminus-2 – GLM-5.2 (high)?
- Terminus-2 – Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite (low), at $0.012 against $0.231 for Terminus-2 – GLM-5.2 (high).
- Which is faster per task, Terminus-2 – Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite (low) or Terminus-2 – GLM-5.2 (high)?
- Terminus-2 – Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite (low), at 1.0 min against 5.9 min for Terminus-2 – GLM-5.2 (high).
- Which has the larger context window, Terminus-2 – Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite (low) or Terminus-2 – GLM-5.2 (high)?
- Terminus-2 – Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite (low), at 1,048,576 tokens against 262,144 tokens for Terminus-2 – GLM-5.2 (high).
More: Terminus-2 – Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite (low) · Terminus-2 – GLM-5.2 (high) · all comparisons