Terminus-2 – GLM-5.2 (none) vs. Claude Code – Claude Sonnet 5.5 (xhigh): geospatial agent comparison
Comparison between Terminus-2 – GLM-5.2 (none) and Claude Code – Claude Sonnet 5.5 (xhigh) 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-5.2 (none) | Claude Code – Claude Sonnet 5.5 (xhigh) |
|---|---|---|
| Geospatial Agent Index | 69* (partial: 1.4 of 3 attempts) | 74 (partial: 1 of 3 attempts) |
| GeoAgentBench score | 94 | 94 |
| GeoBenchX score | 51 | 65 |
| Earth-Bench score | 51 | 48 |
| GeoAnalystBench score | 79 | 89 |
| Raster and remote sensing score | 73 | 71 |
| Vector and overlay score | 69 | 67 |
| Networks and routing score | 100 | 100 |
| Climate and time series score | 58 | 71 |
| Spatial statistics and interpolation score | 58 | 58 |
| Mapping and cartography score | 75 | 75 |
| Recognising infeasible requests score | 33 | 63 |
| Cost per task | $0.103 | $0.163 |
| Time per task | 2.9 min | 1.4 min |
| Tokens per attempt | 169k | 217k |
| Turns per attempt | 11.3 | 7.9 |
| Attempts decided | 356 | 290 |
| Input price per 1M tokens | $1.40 | $2.00 |
| Output price per 1M tokens | $4.40 | $10.00 |
| Context window | 262,144 | No data |
| Image input | No | No data |
| Developer | Z.ai | Anthropic |
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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Claude Code – Claude Sonnet 5.5 (xhigh) | Anthropic | 74 (partial: 1 of 3 attempts) | No pending judgements | 4 of 4 | 290 of 290 planned attempts |
| Terminus-2 – GLM-5.2 (none) | Z.ai | 69* (partial: 1.4 of 3 attempts) | 62 to 72 | 4 of 4 | 356 of 870 planned attempts |
Claude Code – Claude Sonnet 5.5 (xhigh)
Terminus-2 – GLM-5.2 (none)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-5.2 (none) | Z.ai | $0.103 | 408 of 870 planned attempts |
| Claude Code – Claude Sonnet 5.5 (xhigh) | Anthropic | $0.163 | 290 of 290 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-5.2 (none) | Z.ai | 2.9 min | 408 of 870 planned attempts |
| Claude Code – Claude Sonnet 5.5 (xhigh) | Anthropic | 1.4 min | 290 of 290 planned attempts |
Frequently asked questions
- Which scores higher on the Geospatial Agent Index, Terminus-2 – GLM-5.2 (none) or Claude Code – Claude Sonnet 5.5 (xhigh)?
- Claude Code – Claude Sonnet 5.5 (xhigh), at 74 against 69 for Terminus-2 – GLM-5.2 (none). Terminus-2 – GLM-5.2 (none): 356 of 870 planned attempts. Claude Code – Claude Sonnet 5.5 (xhigh): 290 of 290 planned attempts. Coverage is partial; scores can change as more attempts are decided.
- Which is cheaper per task, Terminus-2 – GLM-5.2 (none) or Claude Code – Claude Sonnet 5.5 (xhigh)?
- Terminus-2 – GLM-5.2 (none), at $0.103 against $0.163 for Claude Code – Claude Sonnet 5.5 (xhigh).
- Which is faster per task, Terminus-2 – GLM-5.2 (none) or Claude Code – Claude Sonnet 5.5 (xhigh)?
- Claude Code – Claude Sonnet 5.5 (xhigh), at 1.4 min against 2.9 min for Terminus-2 – GLM-5.2 (none).
- Which has the larger context window, Terminus-2 – GLM-5.2 (none) or Claude Code – Claude Sonnet 5.5 (xhigh)?
- Not known yet: Claude Code – Claude Sonnet 5.5 (xhigh) has no context window data.
More: Terminus-2 – GLM-5.2 (none) · Claude Code – Claude Sonnet 5.5 (xhigh) · all comparisons