User agent detail

LENOVO-A210/S015 Nucleus/1.15 MTK/53 Release/09.01.2011 Browser/Obigo03C
GeneralDeviceBot
ProviderBrowserEngineOSBrandModelTypeIs mobileIs touchIs botNameTypeParse timeActions
Test suite
UAParser
v0.5.0.2
vendor/thadafinser/uap-core/tests/test_device.yaml
close LenovoA210closecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
WhichBrowser
v2.0.18
vendor/whichbrowser/parser/tests/data/mobile/browser-obigo.yaml
Obigo 3C A210mobile:featureclosecloseclose0 Detail
Providers
BrowscapFull
6014
Teleca-Obigo JAVA Mobile Phoneyes0.0156 Detail
BrowscapLite
6014
No result found
BrowscapPhp
6014
Teleca-Obigo closeJAVA closecloseMobile Phoneyesclose0.0624 Detail
DonatjUAParser
v0.5.1
LENOVO-A210 S015closeclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
JenssegersAgent
v2.3.3
UCBrowser close closeclosecloseyescloseclose0 Detail
NeutrinoApiCom

Obigo 3close LenovoA210mobile-browseryescloseclose0.2184 Detail
PiwikDeviceDetector
3.6.1
Obigo MTK / Nucleus 1.15LenovoA210smartphoneyes0 Detail
SinergiBrowserDetector
6.0.1
No result found
UAParser
v3.4.5
Obigo 3close LenovoA210closeclosecloseclose0 Detail
UserAgentApiCom

No result found
UserAgentStringCom

No result found
WhatIsMyBrowserCom

Obigo Browser closeclosecloseclosecloseclose0.235 Detail
WhichBrowser
v2.0.18
Obigo 3C LenovoA210mobile:featureyescloseclose0.0156 Detail
Woothee
v1.2.0
No result found
Wurfl
1.7.1.0
Teleca Obigo close Feature Phoneyescloseclose0.0156 Detail
Zsxsoft
1.3
Obigo 03Cclose LenovoA210closeclosecloseclosecloseclose0 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 2016-05-10 07:50:31 | by ThaDafinser