User agent detail

LG-A290/V100 Obigo/Q05A MMS/LG-MMS-V1.0/1.2 Java/ASVM/1.1 Profile/MIDP-2.1 Configuration/CLDC-1.1
GeneralDeviceBot
ProviderBrowserEngineOSBrandModelTypeIs mobileIs touchIs botNameTypeParse timeActions
Test suite
UAParser
v0.5.0.2
vendor/thadafinser/uap-core/tests/test_device.yaml
close LGA290closecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
Providers
BrowscapFull
6014
Obigo Q 5.0 JAVA Mobile Phoneyes0.0156 Detail
BrowscapLite
6014
No result found
BrowscapPhp
6014
Obigo Q 5.0closeJAVA closecloseMobile Phoneyesclose0.0468 Detail
DonatjUAParser
v0.5.1
LG-A290 V100closeclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
JenssegersAgent
v2.3.3
ObigoBrowser closeJavaOS closeclosecloseyescloseclose0 Detail
NeutrinoApiCom

Obigo closeJVM LGLG-A290mobile-browseryescloseclose0.2028 Detail
PiwikDeviceDetector
3.6.1
Obigo Q05A LGA290smartphoneyes0 Detail
SinergiBrowserDetector
6.0.1
No result found
UAParser
v3.4.5
Obigo 5close LGA290closeclosecloseclose0 Detail
UserAgentApiCom

Obigo 05 closeclosecloseMobileclosecloseclose0.1404 Detail
UserAgentStringCom

close closeclosecloseclosecloseyesJavaCrawler0.0468 Detail
WhatIsMyBrowserCom

Obigo Q05A Browser Q05A LGLGA290closeclosecloseclosecloseclose0.234 Detail
WhichBrowser
v2.0.18
Obigo Q 5A LGA290mobile:featureyescloseclose0 Detail
Woothee
v1.2.0
No result found
Wurfl
1.7.1.0
Teleca Obigo Q05Aclose LGLG-A290Feature Phoneyescloseclose0.0312 Detail
Zsxsoft
1.3
Obigo Q05Aclose LGA290closeclosecloseclosecloseclose0 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 07:50:42 | by ThaDafinser