User agent detail

LG-P520/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)
ua-parser/uap-core
vendor/thadafinser/uap-core/tests/test_device.yaml
LGP520 Detail
Providers
BrowscapPhp
6012
Teleca-Obigo 7.0 JAVA Mobile Phoneyes0.03 Detail
DonatjUAParser
v0.5.0
LG-P520 V100closeclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
NeutrinoApiCom
Obigo closeJVM LGLG-P520mobile-browseryescloseclose0.19502 Detail
PiwikDeviceDetector
3.5.2
Obigo Q7 LGP520smartphoneyes0.006 Detail
SinergiBrowserDetector
6.0.0
No result found
UAParser
v3.4.5
Obigo 7.3close LGP520closeclosecloseclose0.005 Detail
UserAgentStringCom
close closeclosecloseclosecloseyesJavaCrawler0.13401 Detail
WhatIsMyBrowserCom
Obigo Q7 Browser Q7 LGLGP520closeclosecloseclosecloseclose0.40504 Detail
WhichBrowser
2.0.10
Obigo Q 7.3 LGP520mobile:featureyescloseclose0.011 Detail
Woothee
v1.2.0
No result found
Wurfl
1.6.4
Teleca Obigo Q7.3close LGLG-P520Feature Phoneyescloseclose0.032 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 13:32:47 | by ThaDafinser