User agent detail

LG-KP500 Teleca/WAP2.0 MIDP-2.0/CLDC-1.1
GeneralDeviceBot
ProviderBrowserEngineOSBrandModelTypeIs mobileIs touchIs botNameTypeParse timeActions
Source result (test suite)
whichbrowser/parser
/tests/data/mobile/os-feature.yaml
Obigo WAP 2.0 LGKP500 Cookiemobile:featureyes Detail
Providers
BrowscapPhp
6012
Teleca-Obigo JAVA LGKP500Mobile Phoneyes0.016 Detail
DonatjUAParser
v0.5.0
LG-KP500 closeclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
NeutrinoApiCom
Obigo closeJVM LGKP500mobile-browseryescloseclose0.18435 Detail
PiwikDeviceDetector
3.5.2
Obigo LGKP500smartphoneyes0.005 Detail
SinergiBrowserDetector
6.0.0
No result found
UAParser
v3.4.5
Teleca Browser close LGKP500closeclosecloseclose0.021 Detail
UserAgentStringCom
Teleca-Obigo close closecloseclosecloseclose0.13826 Detail
WhatIsMyBrowserCom
LGLGKP500closeclosecloseclosecloseclose0.41679 Detail
WhichBrowser
2.0.10
Obigo WAP 2.0 LGKP500 Cookiemobile:featureyescloseclose0.004 Detail
Woothee
v1.2.0
No result found
Wurfl
1.6.4
Java Applet close LGKP500Feature Phoneyescloseclose0.015 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 13:35:27 | by ThaDafinser