Terminus-2 – GLM-5.3-Flash (max) vs. Claude Code – Claude Opus 5.5 (xhigh): geospatial agent comparison
Comparison between Terminus-2 – GLM-5.3-Flash (max) 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
| Metric | Terminus-2 – GLM-5.3-Flash (max) | Claude Code – Claude Opus 5.5 (xhigh) |
|---|---|---|
| Geospatial Agent Index | 56* (partial: 1.1 of 3 attempts) | 82 (partial: 1 of 3 attempts) |
| GeoAgentBench score | 82 | 98 |
| GeoBenchX score | 32 | 69 |
| Earth-Bench score | 29 | 62 |
| GeoAnalystBench score | 79 | 100 |
| Raster and remote sensing score | 51 | 83 |
| Vector and overlay score | 64 | 89 |
| Networks and routing score | 60 | 100 |
| Climate and time series score | 54 | 75 |
| Spatial statistics and interpolation score | 35 | 71 |
| Mapping and cartography score | 43 | 77 |
| Recognising infeasible requests score | 30 | 62 |
| Cost per task | $0.042 | $0.375 |
| Time per task | 17.3 min | 2.1 min |
| Tokens per attempt | 374k | 266k |
| Turns per attempt | 13.4 | 8.7 |
| Attempts decided | 298 | 290 |
| Input price per 1M tokens | $0.15 | $4.00 |
| Output price per 1M tokens | $0.50 | $20.00 |
| Context window | 1,048,576 | No data |
| Image input | Yes | 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 Opus 5.5 (xhigh) | Anthropic | 82 (partial: 1 of 3 attempts) | No pending judgements | 4 of 4 | 290 of 290 planned attempts |
| Terminus-2 – GLM-5.3-Flash (max) | Z.ai | 56* (partial: 1.1 of 3 attempts) | 54 to 56 | 4 of 4 | 298 of 870 planned attempts |
Claude Code – Claude Opus 5.5 (xhigh)
Terminus-2 – GLM-5.3-Flash (max)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 (max) | Z.ai | $0.042 | 315 of 870 planned attempts |
| Claude Code – Claude Opus 5.5 (xhigh) | Anthropic | $0.375 | 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-5.3-Flash (max) | Z.ai | 17.3 min | 315 of 870 planned attempts |
| Claude Code – Claude Opus 5.5 (xhigh) | Anthropic | 2.1 min | 290 of 290 planned attempts |
Frequently asked questions
- Which scores higher on the Geospatial Agent Index, Terminus-2 – GLM-5.3-Flash (max) or Claude Code – Claude Opus 5.5 (xhigh)?
- Claude Code – Claude Opus 5.5 (xhigh), at 82 against 56 for Terminus-2 – GLM-5.3-Flash (max). Terminus-2 – GLM-5.3-Flash (max): 298 of 870 planned attempts. 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 (max) or Claude Code – Claude Opus 5.5 (xhigh)?
- Terminus-2 – GLM-5.3-Flash (max), at $0.042 against $0.375 for Claude Code – Claude Opus 5.5 (xhigh).
- Which is faster per task, Terminus-2 – GLM-5.3-Flash (max) or Claude Code – Claude Opus 5.5 (xhigh)?
- Claude Code – Claude Opus 5.5 (xhigh), at 2.1 min against 17.3 min for Terminus-2 – GLM-5.3-Flash (max).
- Which has the larger context window, Terminus-2 – GLM-5.3-Flash (max) 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 (max) · Claude Code – Claude Opus 5.5 (xhigh) · all comparisons