User agent detail

LG-KG99 MIC/1.1.14 MIDP-2.0/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
LGKG99 Detail
Providers
BrowscapPhp
6012
Teleca-Obigo 1.1 JAVA LGKG99Mobile Phoneyes0.006 Detail
DonatjUAParser
v0.5.0
LG-KG99 closeclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
NeutrinoApiCom
close LGKG99mobile-browseryescloseclose0.19002 Detail
PiwikDeviceDetector
3.5.2
LGKG99smartphoneyes0.005 Detail
SinergiBrowserDetector
6.0.0
No result found
UAParser
v3.4.5
close LGKG99closeclosecloseclose0.002 Detail
UserAgentStringCom
No result found
WhatIsMyBrowserCom
LGLGKG99closeclosecloseclosecloseclose0.41004 Detail
WhichBrowser
2.0.10
LGKG99mobile:featureyescloseclose0.011 Detail
Woothee
v1.2.0
No result found
Wurfl
1.6.4
Opera 11.10closeLinux armv6l Feature Phoneyescloseclose0.012 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 13:40:02 | by ThaDafinser