Terminus-2 – Gemini 3.8 Flash (low) vs. Terminus-2 – GLM-5.2 (none): geospatial agent comparison
Comparison between Terminus-2 – Gemini 3.8 Flash (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 3.8 Flash (low) | Terminus-2 – GLM-5.2 (none) |
|---|---|---|
| Geospatial Agent Index | 64* (attempts per task: 2.9) | 64* (attempts per task: 2.9) |
| GeoAgentBench score | 96 | 93 |
| GeoBenchX score | 61 | 46 |
| Earth-Bench score | 37 | 40 |
| GeoAnalystBench score | 63 | 76 |
| Raster and remote sensing score | 62 | 52 |
| Vector and overlay score | 63 | 75 |
| Networks and routing score | 100 | 93 |
| Climate and time series score | 51 | 46 |
| Spatial statistics and interpolation score | 43 | 33 |
| Mapping and cartography score | 53 | 70 |
| Recognising infeasible requests score | 83 | 35 |
| Cost per task | $0.115 | $0.104 |
| Time per task | 2.7 min | 3.3 min |
| Tokens per attempt | 314k | 197k |
| Turns per attempt | 17.9 | 11.6 |
| Attempts decided | 833 | 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 – Gemini 3.8 Flash (low) | 64* (attempts per task: 2.9) | No pending judgements; coverage incomplete | 4 of 4 | 833 of 1,167 planned attempts (74 excluded) | |
| 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 (low)
Terminus-2 – GLM-5.2 (none)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 (low) | $0.115 | 833 of 1,167 planned attempts (74 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 (low) | 2.7 min | 833 of 1,167 planned attempts (74 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 (low) or Terminus-2 – GLM-5.2 (none)?
Terminus-2 – Gemini 3.8 Flash (low), at 64 against 64 for Terminus-2 – GLM-5.2 (none). Terminus-2 – Gemini 3.8 Flash (low): 833 of 1,167 planned attempts (74 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 (low) or Terminus-2 – GLM-5.2 (none)?
Terminus-2 – GLM-5.2 (none), at $0.104 against $0.115 for Terminus-2 – Gemini 3.8 Flash (low).
Which is faster per task, Terminus-2 – Gemini 3.8 Flash (low) or Terminus-2 – GLM-5.2 (none)?
Terminus-2 – Gemini 3.8 Flash (low), at 2.7 min against 3.3 min for Terminus-2 – GLM-5.2 (none).
Which has the larger context window, Terminus-2 – Gemini 3.8 Flash (low) or Terminus-2 – GLM-5.2 (none)?
Terminus-2 – Gemini 3.8 Flash (low), at 1,048,576 tokens against 262,144 tokens for Terminus-2 – GLM-5.2 (none).
More: Terminus-2 – Gemini 3.8 Flash (low) · Terminus-2 – GLM-5.2 (none) · all comparisons