Terminus-2 – GLM-5.3-Flash (low) vs. Claude Code – Claude Opus 4.8 (high): geospatial agent comparison

Comparison between Terminus-2 – GLM-5.3-Flash (low) and Claude Code – Claude Opus 4.8 (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-5.3-Flash (low) vs. Claude Code – Claude Opus 4.8 (high)
Metric	Terminus-2 – GLM-5.3-Flash (low)	Claude Code – Claude Opus 4.8 (high)
Geospatial Agent Index	40*	51* (partial: attempt 1 on 105 of 320 tasks)
Earth-Bench V2 score	37	47
GeoBenchX score	43	55
GeoAgentBench score (guided GIS workflow; outside the index)	90	93
GeoAnalystBench score (guided GIS workflow; outside the index)	89	100
Raster and remote sensing score	36	50
Vector and overlay score	50	100
Networks and routing score	No data	No data
Climate and time series score	44	50
Spatial statistics and interpolation score	0	17
Mapping and cartography score	58	83
Recognising infeasible requests score	35	38
Cost per task	$0.051	$0.447
Time per task	13.3 min	2.2 min
Tokens per attempt	569k	197k
Turns per attempt	17.0	8.0
Attempts decided	320	105
Input price per 1M tokens	$0.15	$5.00
Output price per 1M tokens	$0.50	$25.00
Context window	1,048,576	No data
Image input	Yes	No data
Developer	Z.ai	Anthropic

Charts

Partial coverage. Claude Code – Claude Opus 4.8 (high): 49 of 147 Earth-Bench V2 tasks; 56 of 173 GeoBenchX tasks. Grey placeholders identify these entries in the index, cost and time 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-5.3-Flash (low)	Z.ai	40*	No pending judgements; coverage incomplete	2 of 2	320 of 614 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. Claude Code – Claude Opus 4.8 (high).

Data table: Cost per task

Cost per task
Model	Creator	Cost per task	Coverage (attempts)
Terminus-2 – GLM-5.3-Flash (low)	Z.ai	$0.051	320 of 614 planned attempts

Time per task

Average agent wall time per task · Lower is better

Planned attempts still to come

How to read this chart

Not shown: partial coverage. Claude Code – Claude Opus 4.8 (high).

Data table: Time per task

Time per task
Model	Creator	Time per task	Coverage (attempts)
Terminus-2 – GLM-5.3-Flash (low)	Z.ai	13.3 min	320 of 614 planned attempts

Frequently asked questions

Which scores higher on the Geospatial Agent Index, Terminus-2 – GLM-5.3-Flash (low) or Claude Code – Claude Opus 4.8 (high)?

Not comparable yet: Claude Code – Claude Opus 4.8 (high) has partial coverage (49 of 147 Earth-Bench V2 tasks; 56 of 173 GeoBenchX tasks), so it is not ranked. Terminus-2 – GLM-5.3-Flash (low): 320 of 614 planned attempts. Claude Code – Claude Opus 4.8 (high): 105 of 614 planned attempts. Coverage is partial; scores can change as more attempts are decided.

Which is cheaper per task, Terminus-2 – GLM-5.3-Flash (low) or Claude Code – Claude Opus 4.8 (high)?

Terminus-2 – GLM-5.3-Flash (low), at $0.051 against $0.447 for Claude Code – Claude Opus 4.8 (high).

Which is faster per task, Terminus-2 – GLM-5.3-Flash (low) or Claude Code – Claude Opus 4.8 (high)?

Claude Code – Claude Opus 4.8 (high), at 2.2 min against 13.3 min for Terminus-2 – GLM-5.3-Flash (low).

Which has the larger context window, Terminus-2 – GLM-5.3-Flash (low) or Claude Code – Claude Opus 4.8 (high)?

Not known yet: Claude Code – Claude Opus 4.8 (high) has no context window data.

More: Terminus-2 – GLM-5.3-Flash (low) · Claude Code – Claude Opus 4.8 (high) · all comparisons