User agent detail

Mozilla/5.0 (Vodafone/1.0/LG-GS290/V10c Browser/Obigo-Q7.3 MMS/LG-MMS-V1.0/1.2 MediaPlayer/LGPlayer/1.0 Java/ASVM/1.1 Profile/MIDP-2.1 Configuration/CLDC-1.1) UNTRUSTED/1.0 UCWEB/2.0 (Java; U; MIDP-2.0; xx; Mozilla) U2/1.0.0 UCBrowser/9.4.0.342 U2/1.0.0

Detected by 7 of 8 providers
As bot detected by 0 of 7

GeneralDeviceBot
ProviderBrowserEngineOSBrandModelTypeIs mobileIs touchIs botNameTypeActions
BrowscapPhp
6011
Teleca-Obigo 7.0 JAVA Mobile Phoneyes Detail
DonatjUAParser
v0.5.0
No result found
PiwikDeviceDetector
3.5.1
UC Browser 9.4 LGGS290smartphoneyes Detail
SinergiBrowserDetector
6.0.0
Mozilla 5.0close closecloseclosecloseclose Detail
UAParser
v3.4.5
UC Browser 9.4.0close LGGS290closeclosecloseclose Detail
WhichBrowser
2.0.9
Obigo Q 7.3Gecko LGGS290 Cookie Freshmobile:featureyescloseclose Detail
Woothee
v1.2.0
SoftBank Mobile LG-GS290closeclosecloseclosemobilephoneclosecloseclose Detail
Wurfl
1.6.4
UC Browser 8closeAndroid 2.3Feature Phoneyescloseclose Detail

About this comparison

The primary goal of this project is simple
I wanted to know which user agent parser is the most accurate in each part - device detection, bot detection and so on...

The secondary goal is to provide a source for all user agent parsers to improve their detection based on this results.

You can also improve this further, by suggesting ideas at ThaDafinser/UserAgentParserComparison

The comparison is based on the abstraction by ThaDafinser/UserAgentParser
Comparison created 2016-01-26 16:39:04 | by ThaDafinser