User agent detail

LG-GB280/V100 Obigo/WAP2.0 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
LGGB280 Detail
Providers
BrowscapPhp
6012
Teleca-Obigo JAVA Mobile Phoneyes0.042 Detail
DonatjUAParser
v0.5.0
LG-GB280 V100closeclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0.001 Detail
NeutrinoApiCom
Obigo closeJVM LGLG-GB280mobile-browseryescloseclose0.188 Detail
PiwikDeviceDetector
3.5.2
Obigo WAP2 LGGB280smartphoneyes0.005 Detail
SinergiBrowserDetector
6.0.0
No result found
UAParser
v3.4.5
Obigo 2.0close LGGB280closeclosecloseclose0.014 Detail
UserAgentStringCom
No result found
WhatIsMyBrowserCom
Obigo WAP2 Browser WAP2 LGLGGB280closeclosecloseclosecloseclose0.409 Detail
WhichBrowser
2.0.10
Obigo WAP 2.0 LGGB280mobile:featureyescloseclose0.011 Detail
Woothee
v1.2.0
No result found
Wurfl
1.6.4
Java Applet close LGLG-GB280Feature Phoneyescloseclose0.03 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 13:43:03 | by ThaDafinser