Terminus-2 – GLM-4.7-Flash (thinking on) vs. Codex – GPT-5.6 Luna (high): geospatial agent comparison
Comparison between Terminus-2 – GLM-4.7-Flash (thinking on) and Codex – GPT-5.6 Luna (high) 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 – GLM-4.7-Flash (thinking on) | Codex – GPT-5.6 Luna (high) |
|---|---|---|
| Geospatial Agent Index | 43* (partial: attempt 1 on 478 of 488 tasks) | 84* (partial: attempt 1 on 46 of 488 tasks) |
| Earth-Bench V2 score | 44 | No data |
| GeoBenchX score | 42 | No data |
| GS-QA2 score | 44 | 84 |
| GeoAgentBench score (guided GIS workflow; outside the index) | 42 | No data |
| GeoAnalystBench score (guided GIS workflow; outside the index) | 37 | No data |
| Raster and remote sensing score | 43 | 82 |
| Vector and overlay score | 49 | 100 |
| Climate and time series score | 41 | No data |
| Spatial statistics and interpolation score | 15 | No data |
| Mapping and cartography score | 47 | No data |
| Recognising infeasible requests score | 43 | No data |
| Cost per task | $0.036 | $0.0083 |
| Time per task | 10.0 min | 1.7 min |
| Tokens per attempt | 520k | 126k |
| Turns per attempt | 26.0 | 9.4 |
| Attempts decided | 478 | 46 |
| Input price per 1M tokens | $0.060 | $0.20 |
| Output price per 1M tokens | $0.40 | $1.20 |
| Context window | 131,072 | No data |
| Image input | No | No data |
| Developer | Z.ai | OpenAI |
Charts
Partial coverage. Terminus-2 – GLM-4.7-Flash (thinking on): 211 of 221 GS-QA2 tasks; Codex – GPT-5.6 Luna (high): Earth-Bench V2 incomplete; GeoBenchX incomplete; 46 of 221 GS-QA2 tasks. Grey placeholders identify these entries in the index, cost and output token charts; their height does not represent a value. Comparable bars appear when first-attempt coverage is complete. Their available results remain in the side-by-side table.
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) |
|---|
Cost per task
Average cost per task (USD) · Lower is better
First eight selected entries in metric order. Full results in table view.
How to read this chart
Not shown: partial coverage. 2 entries without a first attempt on every index task. What is still running is on the models page.
Data table: Cost per task
| Model | Creator | Cost per task | Coverage (attempts) |
|---|
Output tokens per task
Average output tokens per attempt, reasoning included · Lower is better
First eight selected entries in metric order. Full results in table view.
How to read this chart
Not shown: partial coverage. 2 entries without a first attempt on every index task. What is still running is on the models page.
Data table: Output tokens per task
| Model | Creator | Output tokens per task | Coverage (attempts) |
|---|
Frequently asked questions
Which scores higher on the Geospatial Agent Index, Terminus-2 – GLM-4.7-Flash (thinking on) or Codex – GPT-5.6 Luna (high)?
Which is cheaper per task, Terminus-2 – GLM-4.7-Flash (thinking on) or Codex – GPT-5.6 Luna (high)?
Which writes fewer output tokens per task, Terminus-2 – GLM-4.7-Flash (thinking on) or Codex – GPT-5.6 Luna (high)?
Which has the larger context window, Terminus-2 – GLM-4.7-Flash (thinking on) or Codex – GPT-5.6 Luna (high)?
More: Terminus-2 – GLM-4.7-Flash (thinking on) · Codex – GPT-5.6 Luna (high) · all comparisons