User agent detail

LG-A390/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
LGA390 Detail
Providers
BrowscapPhp
6012
Teleca-Obigo 5.0 JAVA Mobile Phoneyes0.041 Detail
DonatjUAParser
v0.5.0
LG-A390 V100closeclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
NeutrinoApiCom
Obigo closeJVM LGA390mobile-browseryescloseclose0.24205 Detail
PiwikDeviceDetector
3.5.2
Obigo Q05A LGA390smartphoneyes0.009 Detail
SinergiBrowserDetector
6.0.0
No result found
UAParser
v3.4.5
Obigo 5close LGA390closeclosecloseclose0.005 Detail
UserAgentStringCom
close closeclosecloseclosecloseyesJavaCrawler0.06401 Detail
WhatIsMyBrowserCom
Obigo Q05A Browser Q05A LGLGA390closeclosecloseclosecloseclose0.40708 Detail
WhichBrowser
2.0.10
Obigo Q 5A LGA390mobile:featureyescloseclose0.012 Detail
Woothee
v1.2.0
No result found
Wurfl
1.6.4
Teleca Obigo Q05Aclose LGA390Feature Phoneyescloseclose0.027 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 13:38:07 | by ThaDafinser