User agent detail

Bluevibe 3.0 r3912 Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; LG-LG800G/V100[TFXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX] Profile/MIDP-2.0 Configuration/CLDC-1.0) UNTRUSTED/1.0
GeneralDeviceBot
ProviderBrowserEngineOSBrandModelTypeIs mobileIs touchIs botNameTypeParse timeActions
Source result (test suite)
ua-parser/uap-core
vendor/thadafinser/uap-core/tests/test_device.yaml
LGLG800G Detail
Providers
BrowscapPhp
6012
No result found
DonatjUAParser
v0.5.0
MSIE 6.0closeclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
NeutrinoApiCom
IE 6.0close desktop-browsercloseclose0.20998 Detail
PiwikDeviceDetector
3.5.2
Internet Explorer 6.0Trident LG800Gsmartphoneyes0.005 Detail
SinergiBrowserDetector
6.0.0
Internet Explorer 6.0close closecloseclosecloseclose0.001 Detail
UAParser
v3.4.5
IE 6.0close LGLG800Gcloseclosecloseclose0.002 Detail
UserAgentStringCom
Internet Explorer 6.0close closecloseclosecloseclose0.06199 Detail
WhatIsMyBrowserCom
Internet Explorer 6.0Trident LGLGLG800Gcloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0.40496 Detail
WhichBrowser
2.0.10
Internet Explorer 6.0 LGLG800Gmobile:featureyescloseclose0.011 Detail
Woothee
v1.2.0
Internet Explorer 6.0closecloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0.001 Detail
Wurfl
1.6.4
Java Applet close J2ME MidletFeature Phoneyescloseclose0.083 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 13:38:49 | by ThaDafinser