User agent detail

LGE-LG265 POLARIS/6.01 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
LG265 Detail
Providers
BrowscapPhp
6012
No result found
DonatjUAParser
v0.5.0
LGE-LG265 closeclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
NeutrinoApiCom
Polaris 6.01closeJVM LG265mobile-browseryescloseclose0.21902 Detail
PiwikDeviceDetector
3.5.2
Polaris 6.01 LG265smartphoneyes0.005 Detail
SinergiBrowserDetector
6.0.0
No result found
UAParser
v3.4.5
Polaris 6.1close LG265closeclosecloseclose0.003 Detail
UserAgentStringCom
Polaris close closecloseclosecloseclose0.047 Detail
WhatIsMyBrowserCom
No result found
WhichBrowser
2.0.10
Polaris 6.01 LGLG265mobile:featureyescloseclose0.011 Detail
Woothee
v1.2.0
No result found
Wurfl
1.6.4
close LG265Feature Phoneyescloseclose0.026 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 13:36:16 | by ThaDafinser