Terminus-2 – Gemma 4 26B A4B (thinking on) vs. Terminus-2 – GLM-5.2 (none): geospatial agent comparison
Comparison between Terminus-2 – Gemma 4 26B A4B (thinking on) 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 – Gemma 4 26B A4B (thinking on) | Terminus-2 – GLM-5.2 (none) |
|---|---|---|
| Geospatial Agent Index | 62 | 69* (partial: 1.4 of 3 attempts) |
| GeoAgentBench score | 87 | 94 |
| GeoBenchX score | 53 | 51 |
| Earth-Bench score | 34 | 51 |
| GeoAnalystBench score | 72 | 79 |
| Raster and remote sensing score | 57 | 73 |
| Vector and overlay score | 74 | 69 |
| Networks and routing score | 87 | 100 |
| Climate and time series score | 50 | 58 |
| Spatial statistics and interpolation score | 57 | 58 |
| Mapping and cartography score | 71 | 75 |
| Recognising infeasible requests score | 43 | 33 |
| Cost per task | $0.016 | $0.103 |
| Time per task | 7.0 min | 2.9 min |
| Tokens per attempt | 127k | 169k |
| Turns per attempt | 9.9 | 11.3 |
| Attempts decided | 870 | 356 |
| Input price per 1M tokens | $0.10 | $1.40 |
| Output price per 1M tokens | $0.30 | $4.40 |
| Context window | 256,000 | 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 | 69* (partial: 1.4 of 3 attempts) | 62 to 72 | 4 of 4 | 356 of 870 planned attempts |
| Terminus-2 – Gemma 4 26B A4B (thinking on) | 62 | No pending judgements | 4 of 4 | 870 of 870 planned attempts |
Terminus-2 – GLM-5.2 (none)
Terminus-2 – Gemma 4 26B A4B (thinking on)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 – Gemma 4 26B A4B (thinking on) | $0.016 | 870 of 870 planned attempts | |
| Terminus-2 – GLM-5.2 (none) | Z.ai | $0.103 | 408 of 870 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 – Gemma 4 26B A4B (thinking on) | 7.0 min | 870 of 870 planned attempts | |
| Terminus-2 – GLM-5.2 (none) | Z.ai | 2.9 min | 408 of 870 planned attempts |
Frequently asked questions
- Which scores higher on the Geospatial Agent Index, Terminus-2 – Gemma 4 26B A4B (thinking on) or Terminus-2 – GLM-5.2 (none)?
- Terminus-2 – GLM-5.2 (none), at 69 against 62 for Terminus-2 – Gemma 4 26B A4B (thinking on). Terminus-2 – Gemma 4 26B A4B (thinking on): 870 of 870 planned attempts. Terminus-2 – GLM-5.2 (none): 356 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 (thinking on) or Terminus-2 – GLM-5.2 (none)?
- Terminus-2 – Gemma 4 26B A4B (thinking on), at $0.016 against $0.103 for Terminus-2 – GLM-5.2 (none).
- Which is faster per task, Terminus-2 – Gemma 4 26B A4B (thinking on) or Terminus-2 – GLM-5.2 (none)?
- Terminus-2 – GLM-5.2 (none), at 2.9 min against 7.0 min for Terminus-2 – Gemma 4 26B A4B (thinking on).
- Which has the larger context window, Terminus-2 – Gemma 4 26B A4B (thinking on) or Terminus-2 – GLM-5.2 (none)?
- Terminus-2 – GLM-5.2 (none), at 262,144 tokens against 256,000 tokens for Terminus-2 – Gemma 4 26B A4B (thinking on).
More: Terminus-2 – Gemma 4 26B A4B (thinking on) · Terminus-2 – GLM-5.2 (none) · all comparisons