Terminus-2 – Gemma 4 26B A4B (Reasoning) vs. Terminus-2 – GLM-4.7-Flash (Reasoning): geospatial agent comparison
Comparison between Terminus-2 – Gemma 4 26B A4B (Reasoning) and Terminus-2 – GLM-4.7-Flash (Reasoning) 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 – Gemma 4 26B A4B (Reasoning) | Terminus-2 – GLM-4.7-Flash (Reasoning) |
|---|---|---|
| Geospatial Agent Index | 60* | 43* |
| GeoAgentBench score | 86 | 36 |
| GeoBenchX score | 55 | 46 |
| Earth-Bench score | 30 | 48 |
| GeoAnalystBench score | 68 | 42 |
| Raster and remote sensing score | 51 | 39 |
| Vector and overlay score | 79 | 36 |
| Networks and routing score | 100 | 20 |
| Climate and time series score | 48 | 54 |
| Spatial statistics and interpolation score | 75 | 46 |
| Mapping and cartography score | 83 | 58 |
| Recognising infeasible requests score | 44 | 36 |
| Cost per task | $0.012 | $0.025 |
| Time per task | 8.6 min | 9.5 min |
| Tokens per attempt | 89k | 332k |
| Turns per attempt | 8.7 | 15.8 |
| Attempts decided | 145 | 143 |
| Input price per 1M tokens | $0.10 | $0.06 |
| Output price per 1M tokens | $0.30 | $0.40 |
| Context window | 256,000 | 131,072 |
| Image input | Yes | No |
| Developer | Z.ai |
Charts
Axis Spatial Geospatial Agent Index
Equal-weight average of the evaluation scores, 0 to 100 · Higher is better
Data table: Axis Spatial Geospatial Agent Index
| Model | Creator | Geospatial Agent Index | Range while attempts are pending | Benchmarks covered | Coverage (attempts) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Terminus-2 – Gemma 4 26B A4B (Reasoning) | 60* | 60 to 60 | 4 of 4 | 145 of 870 planned attempts | |
| Terminus-2 – GLM-4.7-Flash (Reasoning) | Z.ai | 43* | 43 to 44 | 4 of 4 | 143 of 870 planned attempts |
Cost per task
Average cost per task (USD) · Lower is better
Data table: Cost per task
| Model | Creator | Cost per task | Coverage (attempts) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Terminus-2 – Gemma 4 26B A4B (Reasoning) | $0.012 | 146 of 870 planned attempts | |
| Terminus-2 – GLM-4.7-Flash (Reasoning) | Z.ai | $0.025 | 144 of 870 planned attempts |
Time per task
Average agent wall time per task · Lower is better
Data table: Time per task
| Model | Creator | Time per task | Coverage (attempts) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Terminus-2 – Gemma 4 26B A4B (Reasoning) | 8.6 min | 146 of 870 planned attempts | |
| Terminus-2 – GLM-4.7-Flash (Reasoning) | Z.ai | 9.5 min | 144 of 870 planned attempts |
Frequently asked questions
- Which scores higher on the Geospatial Agent Index, Terminus-2 – Gemma 4 26B A4B (Reasoning) or Terminus-2 – GLM-4.7-Flash (Reasoning)?
- Terminus-2 – Gemma 4 26B A4B (Reasoning), at 60 against 43 for Terminus-2 – GLM-4.7-Flash (Reasoning). Terminus-2 – Gemma 4 26B A4B (Reasoning): 145 of 870 planned attempts. Terminus-2 – GLM-4.7-Flash (Reasoning): 143 of 870 planned attempts. Coverage is partial; scores can change as more attempts are decided.
- Which is cheaper per task, Terminus-2 – Gemma 4 26B A4B (Reasoning) or Terminus-2 – GLM-4.7-Flash (Reasoning)?
- Terminus-2 – Gemma 4 26B A4B (Reasoning), at $0.012 against $0.025 for Terminus-2 – GLM-4.7-Flash (Reasoning).
- Which is faster per task, Terminus-2 – Gemma 4 26B A4B (Reasoning) or Terminus-2 – GLM-4.7-Flash (Reasoning)?
- Terminus-2 – Gemma 4 26B A4B (Reasoning), at 8.6 min against 9.5 min for Terminus-2 – GLM-4.7-Flash (Reasoning).
- Which has the larger context window, Terminus-2 – Gemma 4 26B A4B (Reasoning) or Terminus-2 – GLM-4.7-Flash (Reasoning)?
- Terminus-2 – Gemma 4 26B A4B (Reasoning), at 256,000 tokens against 131,072 tokens for Terminus-2 – GLM-4.7-Flash (Reasoning).
More: Terminus-2 – Gemma 4 26B A4B (Reasoning) · Terminus-2 – GLM-4.7-Flash (Reasoning) · all comparisons