Terminus-2 – GLM-5.2 (max) vs. Codex – DeepSeek V4 Pro (high): geospatial agent comparison

Comparison between Terminus-2 – GLM-5.2 (max) and Codex – DeepSeek V4 Pro (high) on the Geospatial Agent Index, each benchmark, cost, time and token use, from the same tasks, agent and limits. Methodology.

Side by side

Terminus-2 – GLM-5.2 (max) vs. Codex – DeepSeek V4 Pro (high)
Metric	Terminus-2 – GLM-5.2 (max)	Codex – DeepSeek V4 Pro (high)
Geospatial Agent Index	63*	40* (partial: attempt 1 on 48 of 565 tasks)
Earth-Bench V2 score	58	50
GeoBenchX score	58	29
GS-QA2 score	73	No data
GeoAgentBench score (guided GIS workflow; outside the index)	94	No data
GeoAnalystBench score (guided GIS workflow; outside the index)	95	No data
Raster and remote sensing score	67	55
Vector and overlay score	71	No data
Networks and routing score	No data	No data
Climate and time series score	63	0
Spatial statistics and interpolation score	57	0
Mapping and cartography score	80	No data
Recognising infeasible requests score	37	26
Cost per task	$0.347	$0.745
Time per task	8.4 min	12.8 min
Tokens per attempt	436k	852k
Turns per attempt	13.7	24.6
Attempts decided	565	32
Input price per 1M tokens	$1.40	$1.32
Output price per 1M tokens	$4.40	$3.96
Context window	262,144	1,048,576
Image input	No	No
Developer	Z.ai	DeepSeek

Charts

Partial coverage. Codex – DeepSeek V4 Pro (high): 8 of 147 Earth-Bench V2 tasks; 40 of 173 GeoBenchX tasks; GS-QA2 incomplete. 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

Planned attempts still to come

Data table: Geospatial Agent Index

Geospatial Agent Index
Model	Creator	Geospatial Agent Index	Range while attempts are pending	Benchmarks covered	Coverage (attempts)
Terminus-2 – GLM-5.2 (max)	Z.ai	63*	No pending judgements; coverage incomplete; 186 results awaiting review; 1 trace review declined by the judge	3 of 3	565 of 859 planned attempts

Cost per task

Average cost per task (USD) · Lower is better

Planned attempts still to come

How to read this chart

Not shown: partial coverage. Codex – DeepSeek V4 Pro (high).

Data table: Cost per task

Cost per task
Model	Creator	Cost per task	Coverage (attempts)
Terminus-2 – GLM-5.2 (max)	Z.ai	$0.347	565 of 859 planned attempts

Output tokens per task

Average output tokens per attempt, reasoning included · Lower is better

Planned attempts still to come

How to read this chart

Not shown: partial coverage. Codex – DeepSeek V4 Pro (high).

Data table: Output tokens per task

Output tokens per task
Model	Creator	Output tokens per task	Coverage (attempts)
Terminus-2 – GLM-5.2 (max)	Z.ai	33k	565 of 859 planned attempts

Frequently asked questions

Which scores higher on the Geospatial Agent Index, Terminus-2 – GLM-5.2 (max) or Codex – DeepSeek V4 Pro (high)?

Not comparable yet: Codex – DeepSeek V4 Pro (high) has partial coverage (8 of 147 Earth-Bench V2 tasks; 40 of 173 GeoBenchX tasks; GS-QA2 incomplete), so it is not ranked. Terminus-2 – GLM-5.2 (max): 565 of 859 planned attempts. Codex – DeepSeek V4 Pro (high): 32 of 614 planned attempts. Coverage is partial; scores can change as more attempts are decided.

Which is cheaper per task, Terminus-2 – GLM-5.2 (max) or Codex – DeepSeek V4 Pro (high)?

Terminus-2 – GLM-5.2 (max), at $0.347 against $0.745 for Codex – DeepSeek V4 Pro (high).

Which writes fewer output tokens per task, Terminus-2 – GLM-5.2 (max) or Codex – DeepSeek V4 Pro (high)?

Codex – DeepSeek V4 Pro (high), at 19k against 33k for Terminus-2 – GLM-5.2 (max).

Which has the larger context window, Terminus-2 – GLM-5.2 (max) or Codex – DeepSeek V4 Pro (high)?

Codex – DeepSeek V4 Pro (high), at 1,048,576 tokens against 262,144 tokens for Terminus-2 – GLM-5.2 (max).

More: Terminus-2 – GLM-5.2 (max) · Codex – DeepSeek V4 Pro (high) · all comparisons