User agent detail

LG-CU920/V1.0p Obigo/Q05A Profile/MIDP-2.0 Configuration/CLDC-1.1 Wapfrog Hangman 2.0;LG-CU920/V1.0p Obigo/Q05A Profile/MIDP-2.0 Configu
GeneralDeviceBot
ProviderBrowserEngineOSBrandModelTypeIs mobileIs touchIs botNameTypeParse timeActions
Source result (test suite)
ua-parser/uap-core
vendor/thadafinser/uap-core/tests/test_device.yaml
LGCU920 Detail
Providers
BrowscapPhp
6012
Teleca-Obigo 5.0 JAVA LGCU920Mobile Phoneyes0.017 Detail
DonatjUAParser
v0.5.0
LG-CU920 V1.0pcloseclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
NeutrinoApiCom
Obigo closeJVM LGCU920mobile-browseryescloseclose0.203 Detail
PiwikDeviceDetector
3.5.2
Obigo Q05A LGCU920smartphoneyes0.005 Detail
SinergiBrowserDetector
6.0.0
No result found
UAParser
v3.4.5
Obigo 5close LGCU920closeclosecloseclose0.002 Detail
UserAgentStringCom
No result found
WhatIsMyBrowserCom
Obigo Q05A Browser Q05A LGLGCU920closeclosecloseclosecloseclose0.413 Detail
WhichBrowser
2.0.10
Obigo Q 5A LGCU920mobile:featureyescloseclose0.018 Detail
Woothee
v1.2.0
No result found
Wurfl
1.6.4
Teleca Obigo Q05Aclose LGCU920Feature Phoneyesyescloseclose0.024 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 13:27:57 | by ThaDafinser