User agent detail

LG-C395/V10e 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
LGC395 Detail
Providers
BrowscapPhp
6012
Teleca-Obigo 7.0 JAVA Mobile Phoneyes0.02 Detail
DonatjUAParser
v0.5.0
LG-C395 V10ecloseclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0.001 Detail
NeutrinoApiCom
Obigo closeJVM LGC395mobile-browseryescloseclose0.185 Detail
PiwikDeviceDetector
3.5.2
Obigo Q7 LGC395smartphoneyes0.005 Detail
SinergiBrowserDetector
6.0.0
No result found
UAParser
v3.4.5
Obigo 7.3close LGC395closeclosecloseclose0.006 Detail
UserAgentStringCom
No result found
WhatIsMyBrowserCom
Obigo Q7 Browser Q7 LGLGC395closeclosecloseclosecloseclose0.407 Detail
WhichBrowser
2.0.10
Obigo Q 7.3 LGC395mobile:featureyescloseclose0.011 Detail
Woothee
v1.2.0
No result found
Wurfl
1.6.4
Teleca Obigo Q7.3close LGC395Feature Phoneyesyescloseclose0.028 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 13:33:12 | by ThaDafinser