User agent detail

LG-TG800 MIC/WAP2.0 MIDP-2.0/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
LGTG800 Detail
Providers
BrowscapPhp
6012
Teleca-Obigo JAVA Mobile Phoneyes0.02 Detail
DonatjUAParser
v0.5.0
LG-TG800 closeclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
NeutrinoApiCom
close LGTG800mobile-browseryescloseclose0.19002 Detail
PiwikDeviceDetector
3.5.2
LGTG800smartphoneyes0.006 Detail
SinergiBrowserDetector
6.0.0
No result found
UAParser
v3.4.5
close LGTG800closeclosecloseclose0.013 Detail
UserAgentStringCom
No result found
WhatIsMyBrowserCom
LGLGTG800closeclosecloseclosecloseclose0.41104 Detail
WhichBrowser
2.0.10
LGTG800mobile:featureyescloseclose0.012 Detail
Woothee
v1.2.0
No result found
Wurfl
1.6.4
Java Applet close LGTG800Feature 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 13:31:15 | by ThaDafinser