User agent detail

LG-A290/V100 Obigo/Q05A MMS/LG-MMS-V1.0/1.2 Java/ASVM/1.1 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
LGA290 Detail
Providers
BrowscapPhp
6012
Teleca-Obigo 5.0 JAVA Mobile Phoneyes0.054 Detail
DonatjUAParser
v0.5.0
LG-A290 V100closeclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
NeutrinoApiCom
Obigo closeJVM LGLG-A290mobile-browseryescloseclose0.18606 Detail
PiwikDeviceDetector
3.5.2
Obigo Q05A LGA290smartphoneyes0.017 Detail
SinergiBrowserDetector
6.0.0
No result found
UAParser
v3.4.5
Obigo 5close LGA290closeclosecloseclose0.006 Detail
UserAgentStringCom
close closeclosecloseclosecloseyesJavaCrawler0.06002 Detail
WhatIsMyBrowserCom
Obigo Q05A Browser Q05A LGLGA290closeclosecloseclosecloseclose0.40712 Detail
WhichBrowser
2.0.10
Obigo Q 5A LGA290mobile:featureyescloseclose0.014 Detail
Woothee
v1.2.0
No result found
Wurfl
1.6.4
Teleca Obigo Q05Aclose LGLG-A290Feature Phoneyescloseclose0.029 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 13:37:31 | by ThaDafinser