Terminus-2 – Gemini 3.8 Flash (high) vs. Terminus-2 – GLM-5.2 (none): geospatial agent comparison
Comparison between Terminus-2 – Gemini 3.8 Flash (high) 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 3.8 Flash (high) | Terminus-2 – GLM-5.2 (none) |
|---|---|---|
| Geospatial Agent Index | 39* (attempts per task: 2.9) | 64* (attempts per task: 2.9) |
| GeoAgentBench score | 58 | 93 |
| GeoBenchX score | 40 | 46 |
| Earth-Bench score | 28 | 40 |
| GeoAnalystBench score | 32 | 76 |
| Raster and remote sensing score | 37 | 52 |
| Vector and overlay score | 44 | 75 |
| Networks and routing score | 80 | 93 |
| Climate and time series score | 26 | 46 |
| Spatial statistics and interpolation score | 17 | 33 |
| Mapping and cartography score | 25 | 70 |
| Recognising infeasible requests score | 67 | 35 |
| Cost per task | $0.308 | $0.104 |
| Time per task | 8.2 min | 3.3 min |
| Tokens per attempt | 982k | 197k |
| Turns per attempt | 32.4 | 11.6 |
| Attempts decided | 278 | 636 |
| Input price per 1M tokens | $0.75 | $1.40 |
| Output price per 1M tokens | $3.75 | $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 | 64* (attempts per task: 2.9) | 50 to 69 | 4 of 4 | 636 of 1,167 planned attempts (2 excluded) |
| Terminus-2 – Gemini 3.8 Flash (high) | 39* (attempts per task: 2.9) | 13 to 80 | 4 of 4 | 278 of 1,167 planned attempts (1 excluded) |
Terminus-2 – GLM-5.2 (none)
Terminus-2 – Gemini 3.8 Flash (high)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 3.8 Flash (high) | $0.308 | 835 of 1,167 planned attempts (1 excluded) | |
| Terminus-2 – GLM-5.2 (none) | Z.ai | $0.104 | 833 of 1,167 planned attempts (2 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 3.8 Flash (high) | 8.2 min | 835 of 1,167 planned attempts (1 excluded) | |
| Terminus-2 – GLM-5.2 (none) | Z.ai | 3.3 min | 833 of 1,167 planned attempts (2 excluded) |
Frequently asked questions
Which scores higher on the Geospatial Agent Index, Terminus-2 – Gemini 3.8 Flash (high) or Terminus-2 – GLM-5.2 (none)?
Terminus-2 – GLM-5.2 (none), at 64 against 39 for Terminus-2 – Gemini 3.8 Flash (high). Terminus-2 – Gemini 3.8 Flash (high): 278 of 1,167 planned attempts (1 excluded). Terminus-2 – GLM-5.2 (none): 636 of 1,167 planned attempts (2 excluded). Coverage is partial; scores can change as more attempts are decided.
Which is cheaper per task, Terminus-2 – Gemini 3.8 Flash (high) or Terminus-2 – GLM-5.2 (none)?
Terminus-2 – GLM-5.2 (none), at $0.104 against $0.308 for Terminus-2 – Gemini 3.8 Flash (high).
Which is faster per task, Terminus-2 – Gemini 3.8 Flash (high) or Terminus-2 – GLM-5.2 (none)?
Terminus-2 – GLM-5.2 (none), at 3.3 min against 8.2 min for Terminus-2 – Gemini 3.8 Flash (high).
Which has the larger context window, Terminus-2 – Gemini 3.8 Flash (high) or Terminus-2 – GLM-5.2 (none)?
Terminus-2 – Gemini 3.8 Flash (high), at 1,048,576 tokens against 262,144 tokens for Terminus-2 – GLM-5.2 (none).
More: Terminus-2 – Gemini 3.8 Flash (high) · Terminus-2 – GLM-5.2 (none) · all comparisons