User agent detail

LG-A200/V100 Obigo/WAP2.0 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
LGA200 Detail
Providers
BrowscapPhp
6012
Teleca-Obigo JAVA Mobile Phoneyes0.039 Detail
DonatjUAParser
v0.5.0
LG-A200 V100closeclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
NeutrinoApiCom
Obigo closeJVM LGLG-A200mobile-browseryescloseclose0.19 Detail
PiwikDeviceDetector
3.5.2
Obigo WAP2 LGA200smartphoneyes0.004 Detail
SinergiBrowserDetector
6.0.0
No result found
UAParser
v3.4.5
Obigo 2.0close LGA200closeclosecloseclose0.002 Detail
UserAgentStringCom
No result found
WhatIsMyBrowserCom
Obigo WAP2 Browser WAP2 LGLGA200closeclosecloseclosecloseclose0.402 Detail
WhichBrowser
2.0.10
Obigo WAP 2.0 LGA200mobile:featureyescloseclose0.012 Detail
Woothee
v1.2.0
No result found
Wurfl
1.6.4
Java Applet close LGLG-A200Feature Phoneyescloseclose0.028 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 13:34:58 | by ThaDafinser