Axis Spatial

Terminus-2 – GLM-5.2 (none) vs. Terminus-2 – GLM-5.3-Flash (max): geospatial agent comparison

Comparison between Terminus-2 – GLM-5.2 (none) and Terminus-2 – GLM-5.3-Flash (max) 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 (none) vs. Terminus-2 – GLM-5.3-Flash (max)
MetricTerminus-2 – GLM-5.2 (none)Terminus-2 – GLM-5.3-Flash (max)
Geospatial Agent Index69* (partial: 1.4 of 3 attempts)56* (partial: 1.1 of 3 attempts)
GeoAgentBench score9482
GeoBenchX score5132
Earth-Bench score5129
GeoAnalystBench score7979
Raster and remote sensing score7351
Vector and overlay score6964
Networks and routing score10060
Climate and time series score5854
Spatial statistics and interpolation score5835
Mapping and cartography score7543
Recognising infeasible requests score3330
Cost per task$0.103$0.042
Time per task2.9 min17.3 min
Tokens per attempt169k374k
Turns per attempt11.313.4
Attempts decided356298
Input price per 1M tokens$1.40$0.15
Output price per 1M tokens$4.40$0.50
Context window262,1441,048,576
Image inputNoYes
DeveloperZ.aiZ.ai

Charts

Geospatial Agent Index

Equal-weight average of the evaluation scores, 0 to 100 · Higher is better

  • Partial coverage
Geospatial Agent IndexTerminus-2 – GLM-5.2 (none): 69* (partial coverage); Terminus-2 – GLM-5.3-Flash (max): 56* (partial coverage)025507510069*GLM-5.2 (none)56*GLM-5.3-Flash (max)
Data table: Geospatial Agent Index
Geospatial Agent Index
ModelCreatorGeospatial Agent IndexRange while attempts are pendingBenchmarks coveredCoverage (attempts)
Terminus-2 – GLM-5.2 (none)Z.ai69* (partial: 1.4 of 3 attempts)62 to 724 of 4356 of 870 planned attempts
Terminus-2 – GLM-5.3-Flash (max)Z.ai56* (partial: 1.1 of 3 attempts)54 to 564 of 4298 of 870 planned attempts

Cost per task

Average cost per task (USD) · Lower is better

  • Partial coverage
Cost per taskTerminus-2 – GLM-5.3-Flash (max): $0.042 (partial coverage); Terminus-2 – GLM-5.2 (none): $0.103 (partial coverage)$0$0.030$0.060$0.090$0.120$0.042GLM-5.3-Flash (max)$0.103GLM-5.2 (none)
Data table: Cost per task
Cost per task
ModelCreatorCost per taskCoverage (attempts)
Terminus-2 – GLM-5.2 (none)Z.ai$0.103408 of 870 planned attempts
Terminus-2 – GLM-5.3-Flash (max)Z.ai$0.042315 of 870 planned attempts

Time per task

Average agent wall time per task · Lower is better

  • Partial coverage
Time per taskTerminus-2 – GLM-5.2 (none): 2.9 min (partial coverage); Terminus-2 – GLM-5.3-Flash (max): 17.3 min (partial coverage)0m5m10m15m20m2.9 minGLM-5.2 (none)17.3 minGLM-5.3-Flash (max)
Data table: Time per task
Time per task
ModelCreatorTime per taskCoverage (attempts)
Terminus-2 – GLM-5.2 (none)Z.ai2.9 min408 of 870 planned attempts
Terminus-2 – GLM-5.3-Flash (max)Z.ai17.3 min315 of 870 planned attempts

Frequently asked questions

Which scores higher on the Geospatial Agent Index, Terminus-2 – GLM-5.2 (none) or Terminus-2 – GLM-5.3-Flash (max)?
Terminus-2 – GLM-5.2 (none), at 69 against 56 for Terminus-2 – GLM-5.3-Flash (max). Terminus-2 – GLM-5.2 (none): 356 of 870 planned attempts. Terminus-2 – GLM-5.3-Flash (max): 298 of 870 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 Terminus-2 – GLM-5.3-Flash (max)?
Terminus-2 – GLM-5.3-Flash (max), at $0.042 against $0.103 for Terminus-2 – GLM-5.2 (none).
Which is faster per task, Terminus-2 – GLM-5.2 (none) or Terminus-2 – GLM-5.3-Flash (max)?
Terminus-2 – GLM-5.2 (none), at 2.9 min against 17.3 min for Terminus-2 – GLM-5.3-Flash (max).
Which has the larger context window, Terminus-2 – GLM-5.2 (none) or Terminus-2 – GLM-5.3-Flash (max)?
Terminus-2 – GLM-5.3-Flash (max), at 1,048,576 tokens against 262,144 tokens for Terminus-2 – GLM-5.2 (none).

More: Terminus-2 – GLM-5.2 (none) · Terminus-2 – GLM-5.3-Flash (max) · all comparisons