User agent detail

LG-GD510/V100 Teleca/WAP2.0 Profile/MIDP-2.1 Configuration/CLDC-1.1 UNTRUSTED/1.0 Bluevibe 2.4 r3799 Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; LG-GD510/V100 Teleca/WAP2.0 Profile/MIDP-2.1 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
LGGD510 Detail
Providers
BrowscapPhp
6012
Teleca-Obigo JAVA LGGD510Mobile Phoneyes0.009 Detail
DonatjUAParser
v0.5.0
MSIE 6.0closeclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
NeutrinoApiCom
Obigo closeJVM GenericJ2ME Midletmobile-browseryescloseclose0.19702 Detail
PiwikDeviceDetector
3.5.2
Internet Explorer 6.0Trident LGGD510smartphoneyes0.017 Detail
SinergiBrowserDetector
6.0.0
Internet Explorer 6.0close closecloseclosecloseclose0.001 Detail
UAParser
v3.4.5
Teleca Browser close LGGD510closeclosecloseclose0.005 Detail
UserAgentStringCom
Internet Explorer 6.0close closecloseclosecloseclose0.11501 Detail
WhatIsMyBrowserCom
Internet Explorer 6.0Trident LGLGGD510closeclosecloseclosecloseclose0.40804 Detail
WhichBrowser
2.0.10
Obigo WAP 2.0 LGGD510mobile:featureyescloseclose0.025 Detail
Woothee
v1.2.0
Internet Explorer 6.0closecloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
Wurfl
1.6.4
Java Applet close LGGD510Feature Phoneyesyescloseclose0.025 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 13:25:45 | by ThaDafinser