User agent detail

LG-CF360/V10h Teleca/Q7.0 Profile/MIDP-2.1 Configuration/CLDC-1.1 UNTRUSTED/1.0 UCWEB/2.0 (Java; U; MIDP-2.0; en-US; LG-CF360) U2/1.0.0 UCBrowser/9.3.0.326 U2/1.0.0 Mobile
GeneralDeviceBot
ProviderBrowserEngineOSBrandModelTypeIs mobileIs touchIs botNameTypeParse timeActions
Source result (test suite)
ua-parser/uap-core
vendor/thadafinser/uap-core/tests/test_device.yaml
LGCF360 Detail
Providers
BrowscapPhp
6012
Teleca-Obigo 7.0 JAVA LGCF360Mobile Phoneyes0.01 Detail
DonatjUAParser
v0.5.0
LG-CF360 V10hcloseclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
NeutrinoApiCom
Obigo closeJVM GenericJ2ME Midletmobile-browseryescloseclose0.189 Detail
PiwikDeviceDetector
3.5.2
UC Browser 9.3 LGCF360smartphoneyes0.006 Detail
SinergiBrowserDetector
6.0.0
No result found
UAParser
v3.4.5
UC Browser 9.3.0close LGCF360closeclosecloseclose0.008 Detail
UserAgentStringCom
Teleca-Obigo close closecloseclosecloseclose0.063 Detail
WhatIsMyBrowserCom
UC Browser 9.3.0.326 LGLGCF360closeclosecloseclosecloseclose0.407 Detail
WhichBrowser
2.0.10
Obigo Q 7.0Gecko LGCF360mobile:featureyescloseclose0.015 Detail
Woothee
v1.2.0
No result found
Wurfl
1.6.4
UCBrowser Java Applet 9close LGCF360Feature 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 13:40:12 | by ThaDafinser