Terminus-2 – Gemini 3.8 Flash (high) vs. Codex – GPT-5.6 Luna (high): geospatial agent comparison

Comparison between Terminus-2 – Gemini 3.8 Flash (high) and Codex – GPT-5.6 Luna (high) on the Geospatial Agent Index, each benchmark, cost, time and token use, from the same tasks, agent and limits. Methodology.

Side by side

Terminus-2 – Gemini 3.8 Flash (high) vs. Codex – GPT-5.6 Luna (high)
Metric	Terminus-2 – Gemini 3.8 Flash (high)	Codex – GPT-5.6 Luna (high)
Geospatial Agent Index	48* (partial: attempt 1 on 177 of 488 tasks)	84* (partial: attempt 1 on 46 of 488 tasks)
Earth-Bench V2 score	44	No data
GeoBenchX score	51	No data
GS-QA2 score	No data	84
GeoAgentBench score (guided GIS workflow; outside the index)	74	No data
GeoAnalystBench score (guided GIS workflow; outside the index)	32	No data
Raster and remote sensing score	35	82
Vector and overlay score	20	100
Climate and time series score	45	No data
Spatial statistics and interpolation score	31	No data
Mapping and cartography score	32	No data
Recognising infeasible requests score	82	No data
Cost per task	$0.31	$0.0083
Time per task	9.3 min	1.7 min
Tokens per attempt	994k	126k
Turns per attempt	31.3	9.4
Attempts decided	177	46
Input price per 1M tokens	$0.75	$0.20
Output price per 1M tokens	$3.75	$1.20
Context window	1,048,576	No data
Image input	Yes	No data
Developer	Google	OpenAI

Charts

Partial coverage. Terminus-2 – Gemini 3.8 Flash (high): 27 of 117 Earth-Bench V2 tasks; GS-QA2 incomplete; Codex – GPT-5.6 Luna (high): Earth-Bench V2 incomplete; GeoBenchX incomplete; 46 of 221 GS-QA2 tasks. Grey placeholders identify these entries in the index, cost and output token charts; their height does not represent a value. Comparable bars appear when first-attempt coverage is complete. Their available results remain in the side-by-side table.

Geospatial Agent Index

Equal-weight average of the evaluation scores, 0 to 100 · Higher is better

Data table: Geospatial Agent Index

Geospatial Agent Index
Model	Creator	Geospatial Agent Index	Range while attempts are pending	Benchmarks covered	Coverage (attempts)

Cost per task

Average cost per task (USD) · Lower is better

How to read this chart

Not shown: partial coverage. 2 entries without a first attempt on every index task. What is still running is on the models page.

Data table: Cost per task

Cost per task
Model	Creator	Cost per task	Coverage (attempts)

Output tokens per task

Average output tokens per attempt, reasoning included · Lower is better

How to read this chart

Not shown: partial coverage. 2 entries without a first attempt on every index task. What is still running is on the models page.

Data table: Output tokens per task

Output tokens per task
Model	Creator	Output tokens per task	Coverage (attempts)

Frequently asked questions

Which scores higher on the Geospatial Agent Index, Terminus-2 – Gemini 3.8 Flash (high) or Codex – GPT-5.6 Luna (high)?

Not comparable yet: Terminus-2 – Gemini 3.8 Flash (high) has partial coverage (27 of 117 Earth-Bench V2 tasks; GS-QA2 incomplete) and Codex – GPT-5.6 Luna (high) has partial coverage (Earth-Bench V2 incomplete; GeoBenchX incomplete; 46 of 221 GS-QA2 tasks), so it is not ranked. Terminus-2 – Gemini 3.8 Flash (high): 177 of 501 scheduled attempts. Codex – GPT-5.6 Luna (high): 46 of 572 scheduled attempts. Coverage is partial; scores can change as more attempts are decided.

Which is cheaper per task, Terminus-2 – Gemini 3.8 Flash (high) or Codex – GPT-5.6 Luna (high)?

Codex – GPT-5.6 Luna (high), at $0.0083 against $0.31 for Terminus-2 – Gemini 3.8 Flash (high).

Which writes fewer output tokens per task, Terminus-2 – Gemini 3.8 Flash (high) or Codex – GPT-5.6 Luna (high)?

Codex – GPT-5.6 Luna (high), at 2k against 32k for Terminus-2 – Gemini 3.8 Flash (high).

Which has the larger context window, Terminus-2 – Gemini 3.8 Flash (high) or Codex – GPT-5.6 Luna (high)?

Not known yet: Codex – GPT-5.6 Luna (high) has no context window data.

More: Terminus-2 – Gemini 3.8 Flash (high) · Codex – GPT-5.6 Luna (high) · all comparisons