User agent detail

Bluevibe 3.0 r3912 Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; LG-KS360/V10b Teleca/WAP2.0 MIDP-2.0/CLDC-1.1) UNTRUSTED/1.0
GeneralDeviceBot
ProviderBrowserEngineOSBrandModelTypeIs mobileIs touchIs botNameTypeParse timeActions
Source result (test suite)
ua-parser/uap-core
vendor/thadafinser/uap-core/tests/test_device.yaml
LGKS360 Detail
Providers
BrowscapPhp
6012
Teleca-Obigo JAVA Mobile Phoneyes0.021 Detail
DonatjUAParser
v0.5.0
MSIE 6.0closeclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
NeutrinoApiCom
Obigo closeJVM GenericJ2ME Midletmobile-browseryescloseclose0.192 Detail
PiwikDeviceDetector
3.5.2
Internet Explorer 6.0Trident LGKS360smartphoneyes0.004 Detail
SinergiBrowserDetector
6.0.0
Internet Explorer 6.0close closecloseclosecloseclose0.001 Detail
UAParser
v3.4.5
Teleca Browser close LGKS360closeclosecloseclose0.001 Detail
UserAgentStringCom
Internet Explorer 6.0close closecloseclosecloseclose0.052 Detail
WhatIsMyBrowserCom
Internet Explorer 6.0Trident LGLGKS360closeclosecloseclosecloseclose0.408 Detail
WhichBrowser
2.0.10
Obigo WAP 2.0 LGKS360mobile:featureyescloseclose0.013 Detail
Woothee
v1.2.0
Internet Explorer 6.0closecloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
Wurfl
1.6.4
Java Applet close J2ME MidletFeature 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 13:28:03 | by ThaDafinser