User agent detail

LG-GS290/V100 Obigo/WAP2.0 Profile/MIDP-2.1 Configuration/CLDC-1.1 UNTRUSTED/1.0 UCWEB/2.0 (Java; U; MIDP-2.0; en-US; LG-GS290) U2/1.0.0 UCBrowser/9.3.0.326 U2/1.0.0 Mobile
GeneralDeviceBot
ProviderBrowserEngineOSBrandModelTypeIs mobileIs touchIs botNameTypeParse timeActions
Source result (test suite)
ua-parser/uap-core
vendor/thadafinser/uap-core/tests/test_device.yaml
LGGS290 Detail
Providers
BrowscapPhp
6012
Teleca-Obigo JAVA LGGS290Mobile Phoneyes0.016 Detail
DonatjUAParser
v0.5.0
LG-GS290 V100closeclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0.001 Detail
NeutrinoApiCom
Obigo closeJVM GenericJ2ME Midletmobile-browseryescloseclose0.187 Detail
PiwikDeviceDetector
3.5.2
UC Browser 9.3 LGGS290smartphoneyes0.006 Detail
SinergiBrowserDetector
6.0.0
No result found
UAParser
v3.4.5
UC Browser 9.3.0close LGGS290closeclosecloseclose0.001 Detail
UserAgentStringCom
UC Browser 2.0close closecloseclosecloseclose0.141 Detail
WhatIsMyBrowserCom
Obigo WAP2 Browser WAP2 LGLGGS290closeclosecloseclosecloseclose0.422 Detail
WhichBrowser
2.0.10
Obigo WAP 2.0Gecko LGGS290 Cookie Freshmobile:featureyescloseclose0.005 Detail
Woothee
v1.2.0
No result found
Wurfl
1.6.4
UCBrowser Java Applet 9close LGGS290Feature Phoneyesyescloseclose0.023 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 13:35:04 | by ThaDafinser