Terminus-2 – GLM-5.3-Flash (low) vs. Terminus-2 – gpt-oss-120b (low): geospatial agent comparison
Comparison between Terminus-2 – GLM-5.3-Flash (low) and Terminus-2 – gpt-oss-120b (low) 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-5.3-Flash (low) | Terminus-2 – gpt-oss-120b (low) |
|---|---|---|
| Geospatial Agent Index | 66* (partial: 1.1 of 3 attempts) | 37 |
| GeoAgentBench score | 94 | 53 |
| GeoBenchX score | 47 | 31 |
| Earth-Bench score | 27 | 22 |
| GeoAnalystBench score | 94 | 42 |
| Raster and remote sensing score | 61 | 35 |
| Vector and overlay score | 69 | 31 |
| Networks and routing score | 100 | 60 |
| Climate and time series score | 54 | 42 |
| Spatial statistics and interpolation score | 48 | 22 |
| Mapping and cartography score | 67 | 19 |
| Recognising infeasible requests score | 35 | 46 |
| Cost per task | $0.028 | $0.0088 |
| Time per task | 9.8 min | 1.0 min |
| Tokens per attempt | 278k | 23k |
| Turns per attempt | 12.1 | 3.4 |
| Attempts decided | 288 | 870 |
| Input price per 1M tokens | $0.15 | $0.35 |
| Output price per 1M tokens | $0.50 | $0.75 |
| Context window | 1,048,576 | 128,000 |
| Image input | Yes | No |
| Developer | Z.ai | OpenAI |
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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Terminus-2 – GLM-5.3-Flash (low) | Z.ai | 66* (partial: 1.1 of 3 attempts) | 59 to 67 | 4 of 4 | 288 of 870 planned attempts (3 excluded) |
| Terminus-2 – gpt-oss-120b (low) | OpenAI | 37 | No pending judgements | 4 of 4 | 870 of 870 planned attempts |
Terminus-2 – GLM-5.3-Flash (low)
Terminus-2 – gpt-oss-120b (low)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-5.3-Flash (low) | Z.ai | $0.028 | 325 of 870 planned attempts (3 excluded) |
| Terminus-2 – gpt-oss-120b (low) | OpenAI | $0.0088 | 870 of 870 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-5.3-Flash (low) | Z.ai | 9.8 min | 325 of 870 planned attempts (3 excluded) |
| Terminus-2 – gpt-oss-120b (low) | OpenAI | 1.0 min | 870 of 870 planned attempts |
Frequently asked questions
- Which scores higher on the Geospatial Agent Index, Terminus-2 – GLM-5.3-Flash (low) or Terminus-2 – gpt-oss-120b (low)?
- Terminus-2 – GLM-5.3-Flash (low), at 66 against 37 for Terminus-2 – gpt-oss-120b (low). Terminus-2 – GLM-5.3-Flash (low): 288 of 870 planned attempts (3 excluded). Terminus-2 – gpt-oss-120b (low): 870 of 870 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 Terminus-2 – gpt-oss-120b (low)?
- Terminus-2 – gpt-oss-120b (low), at $0.0088 against $0.028 for Terminus-2 – GLM-5.3-Flash (low).
- Which is faster per task, Terminus-2 – GLM-5.3-Flash (low) or Terminus-2 – gpt-oss-120b (low)?
- Terminus-2 – gpt-oss-120b (low), at 1.0 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 Terminus-2 – gpt-oss-120b (low)?
- Terminus-2 – GLM-5.3-Flash (low), at 1,048,576 tokens against 128,000 tokens for Terminus-2 – gpt-oss-120b (low).
More: Terminus-2 – GLM-5.3-Flash (low) · Terminus-2 – gpt-oss-120b (low) · all comparisons