User agent detail

LG-T310i/V100 Obigo/Q7.3 MMS/LG-MMS-V1.1/1.2 MediaPlayer/LGPlayer/1.0 Java/ASVM/1.1 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
LGT310i Detail
Providers
BrowscapPhp
6012
Teleca-Obigo 7.3 JAVA LGT310iMobile Phoneyes0.008 Detail
DonatjUAParser
v0.5.0
LG-T310i V100closeclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
NeutrinoApiCom
Obigo closeJVM LGLG-T310imobile-browseryescloseclose0.18602 Detail
PiwikDeviceDetector
3.5.2
Obigo Q7 LGT310ismartphoneyes0.005 Detail
SinergiBrowserDetector
6.0.0
No result found
UAParser
v3.4.5
Obigo 7.3close LGT310icloseclosecloseclose0.015 Detail
UserAgentStringCom
close closeclosecloseclosecloseyesJavaCrawler0.08101 Detail
WhatIsMyBrowserCom
Obigo Q7 Browser Q7 LGLGT310icloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0.41404 Detail
WhichBrowser
2.0.10
Obigo Q 7.3 LGT310imobile:featureyescloseclose0.012 Detail
Woothee
v1.2.0
No result found
Wurfl
1.6.4
Teleca Obigo Q7.3close LGLG-T310iFeature Phoneyescloseclose0.024 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 13:29:12 | by ThaDafinser