Terminus-2 – Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite (minimal) vs. Terminus-2 – GLM-5.3 (low): geospatial agent comparison
Comparison between Terminus-2 – Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite (minimal) 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 (minimal) | Terminus-2 – GLM-5.3 (low) |
|---|---|---|
| Geospatial Agent Index | 34* (attempts per task: 3) | 72* (attempts per task: 1) |
| GeoAgentBench score | 33 | 94 |
| GeoBenchX score | 40 | 54 |
| Earth-Bench score | 28 | 40 |
| GeoAnalystBench score | 37 | 100 |
| Raster and remote sensing score | 30 | 67 |
| Vector and overlay score | 22 | 82 |
| Networks and routing score | 0 | 100 |
| Climate and time series score | 43 | 67 |
| Spatial statistics and interpolation score | 17 | 48 |
| Mapping and cartography score | 39 | 74 |
| Recognising infeasible requests score | 50 | 41 |
| Cost per task | $0.0056 | $0.251 |
| Time per task | 0.5 min | 6.8 min |
| Tokens per attempt | 18k | 205k |
| Turns per attempt | 3.5 | 10.8 |
| Attempts decided | 869 | 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 (minimal) | 34* (attempts per task: 3) | No pending judgements; coverage incomplete | 4 of 4 | 869 of 870 planned attempts |
Terminus-2 – GLM-5.3 (low)
Terminus-2 – Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite (minimal)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 (minimal) | $0.0056 | 869 of 870 planned attempts | |
| 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 (minimal) | 0.5 min | 869 of 870 planned attempts | |
| 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 (minimal) or Terminus-2 – GLM-5.3 (low)?
- Terminus-2 – GLM-5.3 (low), at 72 against 34 for Terminus-2 – Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite (minimal). Terminus-2 – Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite (minimal): 869 of 870 planned attempts. 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 (minimal) or Terminus-2 – GLM-5.3 (low)?
- Terminus-2 – Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite (minimal), at $0.0056 against $0.251 for Terminus-2 – GLM-5.3 (low).
- Which is faster per task, Terminus-2 – Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite (minimal) or Terminus-2 – GLM-5.3 (low)?
- Terminus-2 – Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite (minimal), at 0.5 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 (minimal) or Terminus-2 – GLM-5.3 (low)?
- They are level, at 1,048,576 tokens.
More: Terminus-2 – Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite (minimal) · Terminus-2 – GLM-5.3 (low) · all comparisons