User agent detail

LG-MG100a MIC/WAP2.0 MIDP-2.0/CLDC-1.0
GeneralDeviceBot
ProviderBrowserEngineOSBrandModelTypeIs mobileIs touchIs botNameTypeParse timeActions
Source result (test suite)
ua-parser/uap-core
vendor/thadafinser/uap-core/tests/test_device.yaml
LGMG100a Detail
Providers
BrowscapPhp
6012
Teleca-Obigo JAVA LGMG100aMobile Phoneyes0.005 Detail
DonatjUAParser
v0.5.0
LG-MG100a closeclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
NeutrinoApiCom
close LGMG100amobile-browseryescloseclose0.18702 Detail
PiwikDeviceDetector
3.5.2
LGMG100asmartphoneyes0.005 Detail
SinergiBrowserDetector
6.0.0
No result found
UAParser
v3.4.5
close LGMG100acloseclosecloseclose0.014 Detail
UserAgentStringCom
No result found
WhatIsMyBrowserCom
LGLGMG100acloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0.42904 Detail
WhichBrowser
2.0.10
LGMG100amobile:featureyescloseclose0.011 Detail
Woothee
v1.2.0
No result found
Wurfl
1.6.4
Java Applet close LGMG100aFeature Phoneyescloseclose0.024 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 13:39:34 | by ThaDafinser