User agent detail

LG-MG100a MIC/WAP2.0 MIDP-2.0/CLDC-1.0
GeneralDeviceBot
ProviderBrowserEngineOSBrandModelTypeIs mobileIs touchIs botNameTypeParse timeActions
Test suite
UAParser
v0.5.0.2
vendor/thadafinser/uap-core/tests/test_device.yaml
close LGMG100aclosecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
Providers
BrowscapFull
6014
Teleca-Obigo JAVA LGMG100aMobile Phoneyes0.0156 Detail
BrowscapLite
6014
No result found
BrowscapPhp
6014
Teleca-Obigo closeJAVA closecloseMobile Phoneyesclose0.0312 Detail
DonatjUAParser
v0.5.1
LG-MG100a closeclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
JenssegersAgent
v2.3.3
closeJavaOS closeclosecloseyescloseclose0 Detail
NeutrinoApiCom

close LGMG100amobile-browseryescloseclose0.2028 Detail
PiwikDeviceDetector
3.6.1
LGMG100asmartphoneyes0 Detail
SinergiBrowserDetector
6.0.1
No result found
UAParser
v3.4.5
close LGMG100acloseclosecloseclose0.0156 Detail
UserAgentApiCom

closeclosecloseMobileclosecloseclose0.156 Detail
UserAgentStringCom

No result found
WhatIsMyBrowserCom

LGLGMG100acloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0.234 Detail
WhichBrowser
v2.0.18
Obigo WAP 2.0 LGMG100amobile:featureyescloseclose0 Detail
Woothee
v1.2.0
No result found
Wurfl
1.7.1.0
Java Applet close LGMG100aFeature Phoneyescloseclose0.0156 Detail
Zsxsoft
1.3
close LGMG100acloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0 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 07:50:38 | by ThaDafinser