Axis Spatial

Terminus-2 – GLM-5.3-Flash (low) vs. Claude Code – Claude Opus 5.5 (xhigh): geospatial agent comparison

Comparison between Terminus-2 – GLM-5.3-Flash (low) and Claude Code – Claude Opus 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

Terminus-2 – GLM-5.3-Flash (low) vs. Claude Code – Claude Opus 5.5 (xhigh)
MetricTerminus-2 – GLM-5.3-Flash (low)Claude Code – Claude Opus 5.5 (xhigh)
Geospatial Agent Index66* (partial: 1.1 of 3 attempts)82 (partial: 1 of 3 attempts)
GeoAgentBench score9498
GeoBenchX score4769
Earth-Bench score2762
GeoAnalystBench score94100
Raster and remote sensing score6183
Vector and overlay score6989
Networks and routing score100100
Climate and time series score5475
Spatial statistics and interpolation score4871
Mapping and cartography score6777
Recognising infeasible requests score3562
Cost per task$0.028$0.375
Time per task9.8 min2.1 min
Tokens per attempt278k266k
Turns per attempt12.18.7
Attempts decided288290
Input price per 1M tokens$0.15$4.00
Output price per 1M tokens$0.50$20.00
Context window1,048,576No data
Image inputYesNo data
DeveloperZ.aiAnthropic

Charts

Geospatial Agent Index

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

  • Partial coverage
Geospatial Agent IndexClaude Code – Claude Opus 5.5 (xhigh): 82; Terminus-2 – GLM-5.3-Flash (low): 66* (partial coverage)025507510082Claude Opus 5.5 (xhigh)66*GLM-5.3-Flash (low)
Data table: Geospatial Agent Index
Geospatial Agent Index
ModelCreatorGeospatial Agent IndexRange while attempts are pendingBenchmarks coveredCoverage (attempts)
Claude Code – Claude Opus 5.5 (xhigh)Anthropic82 (partial: 1 of 3 attempts)No pending judgements4 of 4290 of 290 planned attempts
Terminus-2 – GLM-5.3-Flash (low)Z.ai66* (partial: 1.1 of 3 attempts)59 to 674 of 4288 of 870 planned attempts (3 excluded)

Cost per task

Average cost per task (USD) · Lower is better

  • Partial coverage
Cost per taskTerminus-2 – GLM-5.3-Flash (low): $0.028 (partial coverage); Claude Code – Claude Opus 5.5 (xhigh): $0.375$0$0.100$0.200$0.300$0.400$0.028GLM-5.3-Flash (low)$0.375Claude Opus 5.5 (xhigh)
Data table: Cost per task
Cost per task
ModelCreatorCost per taskCoverage (attempts)
Terminus-2 – GLM-5.3-Flash (low)Z.ai$0.028325 of 870 planned attempts (3 excluded)
Claude Code – Claude Opus 5.5 (xhigh)Anthropic$0.375290 of 290 planned attempts

Time per task

Average agent wall time per task · Lower is better

  • Partial coverage
Time per taskClaude Code – Claude Opus 5.5 (xhigh): 2.1 min; Terminus-2 – GLM-5.3-Flash (low): 9.8 min (partial coverage)0m2m5m8m10m2.1 minClaude Opus 5.5 (xhigh)9.8 minGLM-5.3-Flash (low)
Data table: Time per task
Time per task
ModelCreatorTime per taskCoverage (attempts)
Terminus-2 – GLM-5.3-Flash (low)Z.ai9.8 min325 of 870 planned attempts (3 excluded)
Claude Code – Claude Opus 5.5 (xhigh)Anthropic2.1 min290 of 290 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 5.5 (xhigh)?
Claude Code – Claude Opus 5.5 (xhigh), at 82 against 66 for Terminus-2 – GLM-5.3-Flash (low). Terminus-2 – GLM-5.3-Flash (low): 288 of 870 planned attempts (3 excluded). Claude Code – Claude Opus 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-5.3-Flash (low) or Claude Code – Claude Opus 5.5 (xhigh)?
Terminus-2 – GLM-5.3-Flash (low), at $0.028 against $0.375 for Claude Code – Claude Opus 5.5 (xhigh).
Which is faster per task, Terminus-2 – GLM-5.3-Flash (low) or Claude Code – Claude Opus 5.5 (xhigh)?
Claude Code – Claude Opus 5.5 (xhigh), at 2.1 min against 9.8 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 5.5 (xhigh)?
Not known yet: Claude Code – Claude Opus 5.5 (xhigh) has no context window data.

More: Terminus-2 – GLM-5.3-Flash (low) · Claude Code – Claude Opus 5.5 (xhigh) · all comparisons