Terminus-2 – GLM-5.3-Flash (max) vs. Claude Code – GLM-5.3-Flash (max): geospatial agent comparison

Comparison between Terminus-2 – GLM-5.3-Flash (max) and Claude Code – 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-5.3-Flash (max) vs. Claude Code – GLM-5.3-Flash (max)
Metric	Terminus-2 – GLM-5.3-Flash (max)	Claude Code – GLM-5.3-Flash (max)
Geospatial Agent Index	46* (partial: attempt 1 on 369 of 565 tasks)	41* (partial: attempt 1 on 135 of 565 tasks)
Earth-Bench V2 score	34	43
GeoBenchX score	36	38
GS-QA2 score	67	No data
GeoAgentBench score (guided GIS workflow; outside the index)	84	No data
GeoAnalystBench score (guided GIS workflow; outside the index)	84	No data
Raster and remote sensing score	38	44
Vector and overlay score	69	50
Networks and routing score	No data	No data
Climate and time series score	37	67
Spatial statistics and interpolation score	21	0
Mapping and cartography score	43	0
Recognising infeasible requests score	32	44
Cost per task	$0.067	$0.139
Time per task	20.7 min	18.3 min
Tokens per attempt	625k	1.26M
Turns per attempt	16.2	25.9
Attempts decided	366	89
Input price per 1M tokens	$0.15	$0.15
Output price per 1M tokens	$0.50	$0.50
Context window	1,048,576	1,048,576
Image input	Yes	Yes
Developer	Z.ai	Z.ai

Charts

Partial coverage. Terminus-2 – GLM-5.3-Flash (max): 49 of 245 GS-QA2 tasks; Claude Code – GLM-5.3-Flash (max): 21 of 147 Earth-Bench V2 tasks; 114 of 173 GeoBenchX tasks; GS-QA2 incomplete. Grey placeholders identify these entries in the index, cost and output token 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

Data table: Geospatial Agent Index

Geospatial Agent Index
Model	Creator	Geospatial Agent Index	Range while attempts are pending	Benchmarks covered	Coverage (attempts)

Cost per task

Average cost per task (USD) · Lower is better

How to read this chart

Not shown: partial coverage. Terminus-2 – GLM-5.3-Flash (max), Claude Code – GLM-5.3-Flash (max).

Data table: Cost per task

Cost per task
Model	Creator	Cost per task	Coverage (attempts)

Output tokens per task

Average output tokens per attempt, reasoning included · Lower is better

How to read this chart

Not shown: partial coverage. Terminus-2 – GLM-5.3-Flash (max), Claude Code – GLM-5.3-Flash (max).

Data table: Output tokens per task

Output tokens per task
Model	Creator	Output tokens per task	Coverage (attempts)

Frequently asked questions

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

Not comparable yet: Terminus-2 – GLM-5.3-Flash (max) has partial coverage (49 of 245 GS-QA2 tasks) and Claude Code – GLM-5.3-Flash (max) has partial coverage (21 of 147 Earth-Bench V2 tasks; 114 of 173 GeoBenchX tasks; GS-QA2 incomplete), so it is not ranked. Terminus-2 – GLM-5.3-Flash (max): 366 of 859 planned attempts. Claude Code – GLM-5.3-Flash (max): 89 of 614 planned attempts (3 excluded). 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 – GLM-5.3-Flash (max)?

Terminus-2 – GLM-5.3-Flash (max), at $0.067 against $0.139 for Claude Code – GLM-5.3-Flash (max).

Which writes fewer output tokens per task, Terminus-2 – GLM-5.3-Flash (max) or Claude Code – GLM-5.3-Flash (max)?

Terminus-2 – GLM-5.3-Flash (max), at 30k against 30k for Claude Code – GLM-5.3-Flash (max).

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

They are level, at 1,048,576 tokens.

More: Terminus-2 – GLM-5.3-Flash (max) · Claude Code – GLM-5.3-Flash (max) · all comparisons