Terminus-2 – GLM-4.7-Flash (thinking on) vs. Terminus-2 – gpt-oss-120b (low): geospatial agent comparison
Comparison between Terminus-2 – GLM-4.7-Flash (thinking on) and Terminus-2 – gpt-oss-120b (low) 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 (low) |
|---|---|---|
| Geospatial Agent Index | 40 | 37 |
| GeoAgentBench score | 43 | 53 |
| GeoBenchX score | 39 | 31 |
| Earth-Bench score | 35 | 22 |
| GeoAnalystBench score | 42 | 42 |
| Raster and remote sensing score | 36 | 35 |
| Vector and overlay score | 46 | 31 |
| Networks and routing score | 33 | 60 |
| Climate and time series score | 44 | 42 |
| Spatial statistics and interpolation score | 29 | 22 |
| Mapping and cartography score | 50 | 19 |
| Recognising infeasible requests score | 33 | 46 |
| Cost per task | $0.030 | $0.0088 |
| Time per task | 9.2 min | 1.0 min |
| Tokens per attempt | 419k | 23k |
| Turns per attempt | 17.9 | 3.4 |
| Attempts decided | 870 | 870 |
| 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
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-4.7-Flash (thinking on) | Z.ai | 40 | No pending judgements | 4 of 4 | 870 of 870 planned attempts |
| Terminus-2 – gpt-oss-120b (low) | OpenAI | 37 | No pending judgements | 4 of 4 | 870 of 870 planned attempts |
Terminus-2 – GLM-4.7-Flash (thinking on)
Terminus-2 – gpt-oss-120b (low)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 – GLM-4.7-Flash (thinking on) | Z.ai | $0.030 | 870 of 870 planned attempts |
| Terminus-2 – gpt-oss-120b (low) | OpenAI | $0.0088 | 870 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 – GLM-4.7-Flash (thinking on) | Z.ai | 9.2 min | 870 of 870 planned attempts |
| Terminus-2 – gpt-oss-120b (low) | OpenAI | 1.0 min | 870 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 (low)?
- Terminus-2 – GLM-4.7-Flash (thinking on), at 40 against 37 for Terminus-2 – gpt-oss-120b (low). Terminus-2 – GLM-4.7-Flash (thinking on): 870 of 870 planned attempts. Terminus-2 – gpt-oss-120b (low): 870 of 870 planned attempts.
- Which is cheaper per task, Terminus-2 – GLM-4.7-Flash (thinking on) or Terminus-2 – gpt-oss-120b (low)?
- Terminus-2 – gpt-oss-120b (low), at $0.0088 against $0.030 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 (low)?
- Terminus-2 – gpt-oss-120b (low), at 1.0 min against 9.2 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 (low)?
- Terminus-2 – GLM-4.7-Flash (thinking on), at 131,072 tokens against 128,000 tokens for Terminus-2 – gpt-oss-120b (low).
More: Terminus-2 – GLM-4.7-Flash (thinking on) · Terminus-2 – gpt-oss-120b (low) · all comparisons