User agent detail

Mozilla/5.0 (Vodafone/1.0/LG-GS290/V10b Browser/Obigo-Q7.3 MMS/LG-MMS-V1.0/1.2 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
LGGS290 Detail
Providers
BrowscapPhp
6012
Teleca-Obigo 7.0 JAVA Mobile Phoneyes0.229 Detail
DonatjUAParser
v0.5.0
No result found
NeutrinoApiCom
Obigo closeJVM LGGS290mobile-browseryescloseclose0.188 Detail
PiwikDeviceDetector
3.5.2
Obigo LGGS290smartphoneyes0.005 Detail
SinergiBrowserDetector
6.0.0
Mozilla 5.0close closecloseclosecloseclose0.002 Detail
UAParser
v3.4.5
Obigo 7.3close LGGS290closeclosecloseclose0.011 Detail
UserAgentStringCom
close closeclosecloseclosecloseyesJavaCrawler0.114 Detail
WhatIsMyBrowserCom
Obigo Browser LGLGGS290closeclosecloseclosecloseclose0.44 Detail
WhichBrowser
2.0.10
Obigo Q 7.3 LGGS290 Cookie Freshmobile:featureyescloseclose0.007 Detail
Woothee
v1.2.0
SoftBank Mobile LG-GS290closeclosecloseclosemobilephoneclosecloseclose0.001 Detail
Wurfl
1.6.4
Java Applet close LGGS290Feature Phoneyesyescloseclose0.047 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 13:29:28 | by ThaDafinser