User agent detail

Mozilla/5.0 (Vodafone/1.0/LG-GT350/V10a Browser/Obigo-Q7.3 MMS/LG-MMS-V1.0/1.2 MediaPlayer/LGPlayer/1.0 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
LGGT350 Detail
Providers
BrowscapPhp
6012
Teleca-Obigo 7.0 JAVA Mobile Phoneyes0.104 Detail
DonatjUAParser
v0.5.0
No result found
NeutrinoApiCom
Obigo closeJVM LGGS290mobile-browseryescloseclose0.20302 Detail
PiwikDeviceDetector
3.5.2
Obigo LGGT350smartphoneyes0.005 Detail
SinergiBrowserDetector
6.0.0
Mozilla 5.0close closecloseclosecloseclose0.001 Detail
UAParser
v3.4.5
Obigo 7.3close LGGT350closeclosecloseclose0.007 Detail
UserAgentStringCom
close closeclosecloseclosecloseyesJavaCrawler0.08001 Detail
WhatIsMyBrowserCom
Obigo Browser LGLGGT350closeclosecloseclosecloseclose0.40504 Detail
WhichBrowser
2.0.10
Obigo Q 7.3 LGGT350mobile:featureyescloseclose0.013 Detail
Woothee
v1.2.0
SoftBank Mobile LG-GT350closeclosecloseclosemobilephoneclosecloseclose0 Detail
Wurfl
1.6.4
Java Applet close LGGS290Feature Phoneyesyescloseclose0.032 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 13:40:50 | by ThaDafinser