Terminus-2 – Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite (low) vs. Terminus-2 – GLM-5.2 (none): geospatial agent comparison
Comparison between Terminus-2 – Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite (low) and Terminus-2 – GLM-5.2 (none) 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 (none) |
|---|---|---|
| Geospatial Agent Index | 49 (attempts per task: 3) | 70* (attempts per task: 1.6) |
| GeoAgentBench score | 52 | 94 |
| GeoBenchX score | 46 | 52 |
| Earth-Bench score | 40 | 52 |
| GeoAnalystBench score | 60 | 82 |
| Raster and remote sensing score | 46 | 73 |
| Vector and overlay score | 46 | 72 |
| Networks and routing score | 53 | 100 |
| Climate and time series score | 56 | 65 |
| Spatial statistics and interpolation score | 29 | 58 |
| Mapping and cartography score | 50 | 76 |
| Recognising infeasible requests score | 48 | 33 |
| Cost per task | $0.012 | $0.102 |
| Time per task | 1.0 min | 3.0 min |
| Tokens per attempt | 37k | 171k |
| Turns per attempt | 5.1 | 11.3 |
| Attempts decided | 870 | 446 |
| 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 (none) | Z.ai | 70* (attempts per task: 1.6) | 68 to 70 | 4 of 4 | 446 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 |
Terminus-2 – GLM-5.2 (none)
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 (none) | Z.ai | $0.102 | 463 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 | |
| Terminus-2 – GLM-5.2 (none) | Z.ai | 3.0 min | 463 of 870 planned attempts |
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 (none)?
- Terminus-2 – GLM-5.2 (none), at 70 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 (none): 446 of 870 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 (low) or Terminus-2 – GLM-5.2 (none)?
- Terminus-2 – Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite (low), at $0.012 against $0.102 for Terminus-2 – GLM-5.2 (none).
- Which is faster per task, Terminus-2 – Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite (low) or Terminus-2 – GLM-5.2 (none)?
- Terminus-2 – Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite (low), at 1.0 min against 3.0 min for Terminus-2 – GLM-5.2 (none).
- Which has the larger context window, Terminus-2 – Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite (low) or Terminus-2 – GLM-5.2 (none)?
- Terminus-2 – Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite (low), at 1,048,576 tokens against 262,144 tokens for Terminus-2 – GLM-5.2 (none).
More: Terminus-2 – Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite (low) · Terminus-2 – GLM-5.2 (none) · all comparisons