User agent detail

LG-T300/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)
whichbrowser/parser
/tests/data/mobile/os-feature.yaml
Obigo Q 7.3 LGT300mobile:featureyes Detail
Providers
BrowscapPhp
6012
Teleca-Obigo 7.3 JAVA LGT300Mobile Phoneyes0.008 Detail
DonatjUAParser
v0.5.0
LG-T300 V100closeclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
NeutrinoApiCom
Obigo closeJVM LGT300mobile-browseryescloseclose0.18802 Detail
PiwikDeviceDetector
3.5.2
Obigo Q7 LGT300smartphoneyes0.005 Detail
SinergiBrowserDetector
6.0.0
No result found
UAParser
v3.4.5
Obigo 7.3close LGT300closeclosecloseclose0.002 Detail
UserAgentStringCom
close closeclosecloseclosecloseyesJavaCrawler0.06301 Detail
WhatIsMyBrowserCom
Obigo Q7 Browser Q7 LGLGT300closeclosecloseclosecloseclose0.41004 Detail
WhichBrowser
2.0.10
Obigo Q 7.3 LGT300mobile:featureyescloseclose0.011 Detail
Woothee
v1.2.0
No result found
Wurfl
1.6.4
Teleca Obigo Q7.3close LGT300Feature Phoneyescloseclose0.013 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 13:32:28 | by ThaDafinser