User agent detail

LG-GU295g/V10i Teleca/Q7.0 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
LGGU295g Detail
Providers
BrowscapPhp
6012
Teleca-Obigo 7.0 JAVA Mobile Phoneyes0.02301 Detail
DonatjUAParser
v0.5.0
LG-GU295g V10icloseclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
NeutrinoApiCom
Obigo closeJVM LGGU295mobile-browseryescloseclose0.189 Detail
PiwikDeviceDetector
3.5.2
Obigo LGGU295gsmartphoneyes0.005 Detail
SinergiBrowserDetector
6.0.0
No result found
UAParser
v3.4.5
Teleca Browser close LGGU295gcloseclosecloseclose0.004 Detail
UserAgentStringCom
Teleca-Obigo close closecloseclosecloseclose0.074 Detail
WhatIsMyBrowserCom
LGLGGU295gcloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0.403 Detail
WhichBrowser
2.0.10
Obigo Q 7.0 LGGU295gmobile:featureyescloseclose0.012 Detail
Woothee
v1.2.0
No result found
Wurfl
1.6.4
Java Applet close LGGU295Feature Phoneyescloseclose0.05302 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 13:41:17 | by ThaDafinser