User agent detail

LG-GU285g Browser/Obigo-Q7.3 MMS/LG-MMS-V1.0/1.2 MediaPlayer/LGPlayer/1.0 Java/ASVM/1.1 Profile/MIDP-2.1 Configuratbile-video=d6sdv39lierm72vfe4ucsfjo61
GeneralDeviceBot
ProviderBrowserEngineOSBrandModelTypeIs mobileIs touchIs botNameTypeParse timeActions
Source result (test suite)
ua-parser/uap-core
vendor/thadafinser/uap-core/tests/test_device.yaml
LGGU285g Detail
Providers
BrowscapPhp
6012
Teleca-Obigo 7.0 JAVA Mobile Phoneyes0.028 Detail
DonatjUAParser
v0.5.0
LG-GU285g closeclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
NeutrinoApiCom
Obigo closeJVM LGGU285mobile-browseryescloseclose0.193 Detail
PiwikDeviceDetector
3.5.2
Obigo LGGU285gsmartphoneyes0.008 Detail
SinergiBrowserDetector
6.0.0
No result found
UAParser
v3.4.5
Obigo 7.3close LGGU285gcloseclosecloseclose0.004 Detail
UserAgentStringCom
close closeclosecloseclosecloseyesJavaCrawler0.054 Detail
WhatIsMyBrowserCom
Obigo Browser LGLGGU285gcloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0.404 Detail
WhichBrowser
2.0.10
Obigo Q 7.3 LGGU285gmobile:featureyescloseclose0.011 Detail
Woothee
v1.2.0
No result found
Wurfl
1.6.4
Teleca Obigo close LGGU285Feature Phoneyescloseclose0.028 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 13:26:00 | by ThaDafinser