Axis Spatial

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

Comparison between Terminus-2 – GLM-5.3-Flash (max) and Terminus-2 – GLM-5.3 (low) 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. Terminus-2 – GLM-5.3 (low)
MetricTerminus-2 – GLM-5.3-Flash (max)Terminus-2 – GLM-5.3 (low)
Geospatial Agent Index56* (partial: 1.1 of 3 attempts)71* (partial: 0.9 of 3 attempts)
GeoAgentBench score8295
GeoBenchX score3251
Earth-Bench score2938
GeoAnalystBench score79100
Raster and remote sensing score5165
Vector and overlay score6479
Networks and routing score60100
Climate and time series score5460
Spatial statistics and interpolation score3550
Mapping and cartography score4372
Recognising infeasible requests score3038
Cost per task$0.042$0.250
Time per task17.3 min6.7 min
Tokens per attempt374k205k
Turns per attempt13.410.7
Attempts decided298238
Input price per 1M tokens$0.15$1.40
Output price per 1M tokens$0.50$4.40
Context window1,048,5761,048,576
Image inputYesNo
DeveloperZ.aiZ.ai

Charts

Geospatial Agent Index

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

  • Partial coverage
Geospatial Agent IndexTerminus-2 – GLM-5.3 (low): 71* (partial coverage); Terminus-2 – GLM-5.3-Flash (max): 56* (partial coverage)025507510071*GLM-5.3 (low)56*GLM-5.3-Flash (max)
Data table: Geospatial Agent Index
Geospatial Agent Index
ModelCreatorGeospatial Agent IndexRange while attempts are pendingBenchmarks coveredCoverage (attempts)
Terminus-2 – GLM-5.3 (low)Z.ai71* (partial: 0.9 of 3 attempts)61 to 724 of 4238 of 290 planned attempts
Terminus-2 – GLM-5.3-Flash (max)Z.ai56* (partial: 1.1 of 3 attempts)54 to 564 of 4298 of 870 planned attempts

Cost per task

Average cost per task (USD) · Lower is better

  • Partial coverage
Cost per taskTerminus-2 – GLM-5.3-Flash (max): $0.042 (partial coverage); Terminus-2 – GLM-5.3 (low): $0.250 (partial coverage)$0$0.062$0.125$0.188$0.250$0.042GLM-5.3-Flash (max)$0.250GLM-5.3 (low)
Data table: Cost per task
Cost per task
ModelCreatorCost per taskCoverage (attempts)
Terminus-2 – GLM-5.3-Flash (max)Z.ai$0.042315 of 870 planned attempts
Terminus-2 – GLM-5.3 (low)Z.ai$0.250258 of 290 planned attempts

Time per task

Average agent wall time per task · Lower is better

  • Partial coverage
Time per taskTerminus-2 – GLM-5.3 (low): 6.7 min (partial coverage); Terminus-2 – GLM-5.3-Flash (max): 17.3 min (partial coverage)0m5m10m15m20m6.7 minGLM-5.3 (low)17.3 minGLM-5.3-Flash (max)
Data table: Time per task
Time per task
ModelCreatorTime per taskCoverage (attempts)
Terminus-2 – GLM-5.3-Flash (max)Z.ai17.3 min315 of 870 planned attempts
Terminus-2 – GLM-5.3 (low)Z.ai6.7 min258 of 290 planned attempts

Frequently asked questions

Which scores higher on the Geospatial Agent Index, Terminus-2 – GLM-5.3-Flash (max) or Terminus-2 – GLM-5.3 (low)?
Terminus-2 – GLM-5.3 (low), at 71 against 56 for Terminus-2 – GLM-5.3-Flash (max). Terminus-2 – GLM-5.3-Flash (max): 298 of 870 planned attempts. Terminus-2 – GLM-5.3 (low): 238 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 Terminus-2 – GLM-5.3 (low)?
Terminus-2 – GLM-5.3-Flash (max), at $0.042 against $0.250 for Terminus-2 – GLM-5.3 (low).
Which is faster per task, Terminus-2 – GLM-5.3-Flash (max) or Terminus-2 – GLM-5.3 (low)?
Terminus-2 – GLM-5.3 (low), at 6.7 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 Terminus-2 – GLM-5.3 (low)?
They are level, at 1,048,576 tokens.

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