Terminus-2 – Gemma 4 26B A4B (thinking on) vs. Terminus-2 – GLM-5.3-Flash (max): geospatial agent comparison
Comparison between Terminus-2 – Gemma 4 26B A4B (thinking on) and Terminus-2 – GLM-5.3-Flash (max) 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-5.3-Flash (max) |
|---|---|---|
| Geospatial Agent Index | 62 | 56* (partial: 1.1 of 3 attempts) |
| GeoAgentBench score | 87 | 82 |
| GeoBenchX score | 53 | 32 |
| Earth-Bench score | 34 | 29 |
| GeoAnalystBench score | 72 | 79 |
| Raster and remote sensing score | 57 | 51 |
| Vector and overlay score | 74 | 64 |
| Networks and routing score | 87 | 60 |
| Climate and time series score | 50 | 54 |
| Spatial statistics and interpolation score | 57 | 35 |
| Mapping and cartography score | 71 | 43 |
| Recognising infeasible requests score | 43 | 30 |
| Cost per task | $0.016 | $0.042 |
| Time per task | 7.0 min | 17.3 min |
| Tokens per attempt | 127k | 374k |
| Turns per attempt | 9.9 | 13.4 |
| Attempts decided | 870 | 298 |
| Input price per 1M tokens | $0.10 | $0.15 |
| Output price per 1M tokens | $0.30 | $0.50 |
| Context window | 256,000 | 1,048,576 |
| Image input | Yes | Yes |
| 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 – Gemma 4 26B A4B (thinking on) | 62 | No pending judgements | 4 of 4 | 870 of 870 planned attempts | |
| Terminus-2 – GLM-5.3-Flash (max) | Z.ai | 56* (partial: 1.1 of 3 attempts) | 54 to 56 | 4 of 4 | 298 of 870 planned attempts |
Terminus-2 – Gemma 4 26B A4B (thinking on)
Terminus-2 – GLM-5.3-Flash (max)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-5.3-Flash (max) | Z.ai | $0.042 | 315 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-5.3-Flash (max) | Z.ai | 17.3 min | 315 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-5.3-Flash (max)?
- Terminus-2 – Gemma 4 26B A4B (thinking on), at 62 against 56 for Terminus-2 – GLM-5.3-Flash (max). Terminus-2 – Gemma 4 26B A4B (thinking on): 870 of 870 planned attempts. Terminus-2 – GLM-5.3-Flash (max): 298 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-5.3-Flash (max)?
- Terminus-2 – Gemma 4 26B A4B (thinking on), at $0.016 against $0.042 for Terminus-2 – GLM-5.3-Flash (max).
- Which is faster per task, Terminus-2 – Gemma 4 26B A4B (thinking on) or Terminus-2 – GLM-5.3-Flash (max)?
- Terminus-2 – Gemma 4 26B A4B (thinking on), at 7.0 min against 17.3 min for Terminus-2 – GLM-5.3-Flash (max).
- Which has the larger context window, Terminus-2 – Gemma 4 26B A4B (thinking on) or Terminus-2 – GLM-5.3-Flash (max)?
- Terminus-2 – GLM-5.3-Flash (max), at 1,048,576 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-5.3-Flash (max) · all comparisons