User agent detail

LG-GT500s_TD/1.0 WinMobile/6.5 Release/1.21.2010 Browser/Polaris6.2 Profile/MIDP-2.0 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
LGGT500s Detail
Providers
BrowscapPhp
6012
No result found
DonatjUAParser
v0.5.0
LG-GT500s closeclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
NeutrinoApiCom
closeWindows LGGT500 Puccinimobile-browseryescloseclose0.195 Detail
PiwikDeviceDetector
3.5.2
Polaris LGGT500ssmartphoneyes0.006 Detail
SinergiBrowserDetector
6.0.0
No result found
UAParser
v3.4.5
close LGGT500scloseclosecloseclose0.002 Detail
UserAgentStringCom
Polaris 6.2close closecloseclosecloseclose0.074 Detail
WhatIsMyBrowserCom
LGLGGT500scloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0.405 Detail
WhichBrowser
2.0.10
Windows LGGT500 Puccinimobile:featureyescloseclose0.013 Detail
Woothee
v1.2.0
No result found
Wurfl
1.6.4
Java Applet close LGGT500Feature Phoneyesyescloseclose0.02901 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 13:41:37 | by ThaDafinser