Terminus-2 – GLM-5.3-Flash (max) vs. Terminus-2 – gpt-oss-120b (high): geospatial agent comparison
Comparison between Terminus-2 – GLM-5.3-Flash (max) and Terminus-2 – gpt-oss-120b (high) 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) | Terminus-2 – gpt-oss-120b (high) |
|---|---|---|
| Geospatial Agent Index | 56* (partial: 1.1 of 3 attempts) | 52 |
| GeoAgentBench score | 82 | 75 |
| GeoBenchX score | 32 | 38 |
| Earth-Bench score | 29 | 44 |
| GeoAnalystBench score | 79 | 51 |
| Raster and remote sensing score | 51 | 54 |
| Vector and overlay score | 64 | 61 |
| Networks and routing score | 60 | 80 |
| Climate and time series score | 54 | 57 |
| Spatial statistics and interpolation score | 35 | 32 |
| Mapping and cartography score | 43 | 34 |
| Recognising infeasible requests score | 30 | 44 |
| Cost per task | $0.042 | $0.026 |
| Time per task | 17.3 min | 4.6 min |
| Tokens per attempt | 374k | 60k |
| Turns per attempt | 13.4 | 5.2 |
| Attempts decided | 298 | 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 (max) | Z.ai | 56* (partial: 1.1 of 3 attempts) | 54 to 56 | 4 of 4 | 298 of 870 planned attempts |
| Terminus-2 – gpt-oss-120b (high) | OpenAI | 52 | No pending judgements | 4 of 4 | 870 of 870 planned attempts |
Terminus-2 – GLM-5.3-Flash (max)
Terminus-2 – gpt-oss-120b (high)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 |
| Terminus-2 – gpt-oss-120b (high) | OpenAI | $0.026 | 869 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 (max) | Z.ai | 17.3 min | 315 of 870 planned attempts |
| Terminus-2 – gpt-oss-120b (high) | OpenAI | 4.6 min | 870 of 870 planned attempts |
Frequently asked questions
- Which scores higher on the Geospatial Agent Index, Terminus-2 – GLM-5.3-Flash (max) or Terminus-2 – gpt-oss-120b (high)?
- Terminus-2 – GLM-5.3-Flash (max), at 56 against 52 for Terminus-2 – gpt-oss-120b (high). Terminus-2 – GLM-5.3-Flash (max): 298 of 870 planned attempts. Terminus-2 – gpt-oss-120b (high): 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 (max) or Terminus-2 – gpt-oss-120b (high)?
- Terminus-2 – gpt-oss-120b (high), at $0.026 against $0.042 for Terminus-2 – GLM-5.3-Flash (max).
- Which is faster per task, Terminus-2 – GLM-5.3-Flash (max) or Terminus-2 – gpt-oss-120b (high)?
- Terminus-2 – gpt-oss-120b (high), at 4.6 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 – gpt-oss-120b (high)?
- Terminus-2 – GLM-5.3-Flash (max), at 1,048,576 tokens against 128,000 tokens for Terminus-2 – gpt-oss-120b (high).
More: Terminus-2 – GLM-5.3-Flash (max) · Terminus-2 – gpt-oss-120b (high) · all comparisons