User agent detail

Mozilla/5.0(compatible; Teleca Q7; 4.0.3; U; en) 240X480 LGE LG-LG9600
GeneralDeviceBot
ProviderBrowserEngineOSBrandModelTypeIs mobileIs touchIs botNameTypeParse timeActions
Source result (test suite)
ua-parser/uap-core
vendor/thadafinser/uap-core/tests/test_device.yaml
LGLG9600 Detail
Providers
BrowscapPhp
6012
No result found
DonatjUAParser
v0.5.0
No result found
NeutrinoApiCom
Obigo Q 7close LGLG9600mobile-browseryescloseclose0.21502 Detail
PiwikDeviceDetector
3.5.2
Obigo LGLGsmartphoneyes0.004 Detail
SinergiBrowserDetector
6.0.0
Mozilla 5.0(compatible;close closecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
UAParser
v3.4.5
Teleca Browser close LGLG9600closeclosecloseclose0.002 Detail
UserAgentStringCom
Teleca-Obigo Q7close closecloseclosecloseclose0.04601 Detail
WhatIsMyBrowserCom
Mozilla 5.0 LGLGLG9600closeclosecloseclosecloseclose0.40304 Detail
WhichBrowser
2.0.10
Obigo Q 7 LGLG9600mobile:featureyescloseclose0.011 Detail
Woothee
v1.2.0
No result found
Wurfl
1.6.4
close LGLG9600Feature Phoneyescloseclose0.039 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 13:33:52 | by ThaDafinser