User agent detail

LG-GD310_CMCC Release/9.25.2009 Browser/Teleca-Q05A Profile/MIDP-2.0 Configuration/CLDC-1.1
GeneralDeviceBot
ProviderBrowserEngineOSBrandModelTypeIs mobileIs touchIs botNameTypeParse timeActions
Source result (test suite)
ua-parser/uap-core
vendor/thadafinser/uap-core/tests/test_device.yaml
LGGD310 Detail
Providers
BrowscapPhp
6012
No result found
DonatjUAParser
v0.5.0
LG-GD310 closeclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
NeutrinoApiCom
Obigo closeJVM mobile-browseryescloseclose0.18602 Detail
PiwikDeviceDetector
3.5.2
Obigo LGGD310smartphoneyes0.012 Detail
SinergiBrowserDetector
6.0.0
No result found
UAParser
v3.4.5
Teleca Browser close LGGD310closeclosecloseclose0.007 Detail
UserAgentStringCom
Teleca-Obigo Q05Aclose closecloseclosecloseclose0.06501 Detail
WhatIsMyBrowserCom
LGLGGD310closeclosecloseclosecloseclose0.40704 Detail
WhichBrowser
2.0.10
Obigo Q 5A LGGD310mobile:featureyescloseclose0.013 Detail
Woothee
v1.2.0
No result found
Wurfl
1.6.4
Opera 11.10closeLinux armv6l Feature Phoneyescloseclose0.012 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 2016-02-13 13:24:48 | by ThaDafinser