User agent detail

LG-C299/V100 Obigo/Q05A MMS/LG-MMS-V1.0/1.2 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
LGC299 Detail
Providers
BrowscapPhp
6012
Teleca-Obigo 5.0 JAVA Mobile Phoneyes0.026 Detail
DonatjUAParser
v0.5.0
LG-C299 V100closeclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
NeutrinoApiCom
Obigo closeJVM LGC299mobile-browseryescloseclose0.191 Detail
PiwikDeviceDetector
3.5.2
Obigo Q05A LGC299smartphoneyes0.007 Detail
SinergiBrowserDetector
6.0.0
No result found
UAParser
v3.4.5
Obigo 5close LGC299closeclosecloseclose0.007 Detail
UserAgentStringCom
close closeclosecloseclosecloseyesJavaCrawler0.066 Detail
WhatIsMyBrowserCom
Obigo Q05A Browser Q05A LGLGC299closeclosecloseclosecloseclose0.643 Detail
WhichBrowser
2.0.10
Obigo Q 5A LGC299mobile:featureyescloseclose0.013 Detail
Woothee
v1.2.0
No result found
Wurfl
1.6.4
Teleca Obigo Q05Aclose LGC299Feature Phoneyescloseclose0.026 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 13:29:52 | by ThaDafinser