User agent detail

LG-GC900/V10a Obigo/WAP2.0 Profile/MIDP-2.1 Configuration/CLDC-1.1 UNTRUSTED/1.0 Bluevibe 3.0 r3912 Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; LG-GC900/V10a 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
LGGC900 Detail
Providers
BrowscapPhp
6012
Teleca-Obigo JAVA Mobile Phoneyes0.043 Detail
DonatjUAParser
v0.5.0
MSIE 6.0closeclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
NeutrinoApiCom
Obigo closeJVM GenericJ2ME Midletmobile-browseryescloseclose0.19708 Detail
PiwikDeviceDetector
3.5.2
Internet Explorer 6.0Trident LGGC900smartphoneyes0.005 Detail
SinergiBrowserDetector
6.0.0
Internet Explorer 6.0close closecloseclosecloseclose0.001 Detail
UAParser
v3.4.5
Obigo 2.0close LGGC900closeclosecloseclose0.003 Detail
UserAgentStringCom
Internet Explorer 6.0close closecloseclosecloseclose0.05302 Detail
WhatIsMyBrowserCom
Obigo WAP2 Browser WAP2 LGLGGC900closeclosecloseclosecloseclose0.41317 Detail
WhichBrowser
2.0.10
Obigo WAP 2.0 LGGC900mobile:featureyescloseclose0.011 Detail
Woothee
v1.2.0
Internet Explorer 6.0closecloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0.001 Detail
Wurfl
1.6.4
Java Applet close LGGC900Feature Phoneyesyescloseclose0.029 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 13:35:39 | by ThaDafinser