Terminus-2 – GLM-4.7-Flash (thinking on) vs. Terminus-2 – gpt-oss-120b (high): geospatial agent comparison
Comparison between Terminus-2 – GLM-4.7-Flash (thinking on) and Terminus-2 – gpt-oss-120b (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) | Terminus-2 – gpt-oss-120b (high) |
|---|---|---|
| Geospatial Agent Index | 41* | 52* |
| GeoAgentBench score | 36 | 70 |
| GeoBenchX score | 39 | 41 |
| Earth-Bench score | 45 | 45 |
| GeoAnalystBench score | 42 | 53 |
| Raster and remote sensing score | 36 | 52 |
| Vector and overlay score | 36 | 56 |
| Networks and routing score | 20 | 100 |
| Climate and time series score | 55 | 60 |
| Spatial statistics and interpolation score | 40 | 29 |
| Mapping and cartography score | 54 | 40 |
| Recognising infeasible requests score | 36 | 46 |
| Cost per task | $0.027 | $0.025 |
| Time per task | 10.0 min | 4.4 min |
| Tokens per attempt | 357k | 58k |
| Turns per attempt | 16.6 | 5.4 |
| Attempts decided | 176 | 320 |
| Input price per 1M tokens | $0.06 | $0.35 |
| Output price per 1M tokens | $0.40 | $0.75 |
| Context window | 131,072 | 128,000 |
| Image input | No | No |
| Developer | Z.ai | OpenAI |
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 – gpt-oss-120b (high) | OpenAI | 52* | 52 to 52 | 4 of 4 | 320 of 870 planned attempts |
| Terminus-2 – GLM-4.7-Flash (thinking on) | Z.ai | 41* | No pending judgements; coverage incomplete | 4 of 4 | 176 of 870 planned attempts |
Terminus-2 – gpt-oss-120b (high)
Terminus-2 – GLM-4.7-Flash (thinking on)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 – GLM-4.7-Flash (thinking on) | Z.ai | $0.027 | 176 of 870 planned attempts |
| Terminus-2 – gpt-oss-120b (high) | OpenAI | $0.025 | 321 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 – GLM-4.7-Flash (thinking on) | Z.ai | 10.0 min | 176 of 870 planned attempts |
| Terminus-2 – gpt-oss-120b (high) | OpenAI | 4.4 min | 321 of 870 planned attempts |
Frequently asked questions
- Which scores higher on the Geospatial Agent Index, Terminus-2 – GLM-4.7-Flash (thinking on) or Terminus-2 – gpt-oss-120b (high)?
- Terminus-2 – gpt-oss-120b (high), at 52 against 41 for Terminus-2 – GLM-4.7-Flash (thinking on). Terminus-2 – GLM-4.7-Flash (thinking on): 176 of 870 planned attempts. Terminus-2 – gpt-oss-120b (high): 320 of 870 planned attempts. Coverage is partial; scores can change as more attempts are decided.
- Which is cheaper per task, Terminus-2 – GLM-4.7-Flash (thinking on) or Terminus-2 – gpt-oss-120b (high)?
- Terminus-2 – gpt-oss-120b (high), at $0.025 against $0.027 for Terminus-2 – GLM-4.7-Flash (thinking on).
- Which is faster per task, Terminus-2 – GLM-4.7-Flash (thinking on) or Terminus-2 – gpt-oss-120b (high)?
- Terminus-2 – gpt-oss-120b (high), at 4.4 min against 10.0 min for Terminus-2 – GLM-4.7-Flash (thinking on).
- Which has the larger context window, Terminus-2 – GLM-4.7-Flash (thinking on) or Terminus-2 – gpt-oss-120b (high)?
- Terminus-2 – GLM-4.7-Flash (thinking on), at 131,072 tokens against 128,000 tokens for Terminus-2 – gpt-oss-120b (high).
More: Terminus-2 – GLM-4.7-Flash (thinking on) · Terminus-2 – gpt-oss-120b (high) · all comparisons