User agent detail

LG-LG840G/V100[TF013293005445552024363913344521363] Obigo/Q7.3 Profile/MIDP-2.1 Configuration/CLDC-1.1
GeneralDeviceBot
ProviderBrowserEngineOSBrandModelTypeIs mobileIs touchIs botNameTypeParse timeActions
Source result (test suite)
whichbrowser/parser
/tests/data/mobile/os-feature.yaml
Obigo Q 7.3 LGLG840Gmobile:featureyes Detail
Providers
BrowscapPhp
6012
Teleca-Obigo 7.0 JAVA Mobile Phoneyes0.08501 Detail
DonatjUAParser
v0.5.0
LG-LG840G V100closeclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
NeutrinoApiCom
Obigo closeJVM LGLG 840Gmobile-browseryescloseclose0.21702 Detail
PiwikDeviceDetector
3.5.2
Obigo Q7 LG840Gsmartphoneyes0.005 Detail
SinergiBrowserDetector
6.0.0
No result found
UAParser
v3.4.5
Obigo 7.3close LG840Gcloseclosecloseclose0.014 Detail
UserAgentStringCom
No result found
WhatIsMyBrowserCom
Obigo Q7 Browser Q7 LGLGLG840Gcloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0.52405 Detail
WhichBrowser
2.0.10
Obigo Q 7.3 LGLG840Gmobile:featureyescloseclose0.016 Detail
Woothee
v1.2.0
No result found
Wurfl
1.6.4
Teleca Obigo Q7.3close LGLG 840GFeature Phoneyescloseclose0.014 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 13:24:57 | by ThaDafinser