User agent detail

LGE-LG160V AU-OBIGO/Q04C1-1.17 MMP/2.0
GeneralDeviceBot
ProviderBrowserEngineOSBrandModelTypeIs mobileIs touchIs botNameTypeParse timeActions
Source result (test suite)
ua-parser/uap-core
vendor/thadafinser/uap-core/tests/test_device.yaml
LG160V Detail
Providers
BrowscapPhp
6012
No result found
DonatjUAParser
v0.5.0
LGE-LG160V closeclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
NeutrinoApiCom
Obigo Q 4close LGLG160Vmobile-browseryescloseclose0.18602 Detail
PiwikDeviceDetector
3.5.2
LG160Vsmartphoneyes0.008 Detail
SinergiBrowserDetector
6.0.0
No result found
UAParser
v3.4.5
Obigo 4.1close LG160Vcloseclosecloseclose0.007 Detail
UserAgentStringCom
No result found
WhatIsMyBrowserCom
Obigo Q04C1 Browser Q04C1 closeclosecloseclosecloseclose0.41304 Detail
WhichBrowser
2.0.10
Obigo Q 4C LGLG160Vmobile:featureyescloseclose0.011 Detail
Woothee
v1.2.0
No result found
Wurfl
1.6.4
close LGLG160VFeature 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 13:36:09 | by ThaDafinser