User agent detail

LG-LG440G/V100[TF013643002325449000000012342147411] Obigo/Q7.3 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
LG440G Detail
Providers
BrowscapPhp
6012
Teleca-Obigo 7.0 JAVA Mobile Phoneyes0.058 Detail
DonatjUAParser
v0.5.0
LG-LG440G V100closeclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
NeutrinoApiCom
Obigo closeJVM LGLG440Gmobile-browseryescloseclose0.20902 Detail
PiwikDeviceDetector
3.5.2
Obigo Q7 LG440Gsmartphoneyes0.006 Detail
SinergiBrowserDetector
6.0.0
No result found
UAParser
v3.4.5
Obigo 7.3close LG440Gcloseclosecloseclose0.008 Detail
UserAgentStringCom
No result found
WhatIsMyBrowserCom
Obigo Q7 Browser Q7 LGLGLG440Gcloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0.40304 Detail
WhichBrowser
2.0.10
Obigo Q 7.3 LGLG440Gmobile:featureyescloseclose0.014 Detail
Woothee
v1.2.0
No result found
Wurfl
1.6.4
Teleca Obigo Q7.3close LGLG440GFeature 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 13:30:06 | by ThaDafinser