User agent detail

LG-LG260 POLARIS-LG260/2.0 MMP/2.0 Profile/MIDP-2.0 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 LG260closecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
Providers
BrowscapFull
6014
No result found
BrowscapLite
6014
No result found
BrowscapPhp
6014
No result found
DonatjUAParser
v0.5.1
LG-LG260 closeclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
JenssegersAgent
v2.3.3
closeJavaOS closeclosecloseyescloseclose0 Detail
NeutrinoApiCom

close LGLG260mobile-browseryescloseclose0.2028 Detail
PiwikDeviceDetector
3.6.1
Polaris LG260smartphoneyes0 Detail
SinergiBrowserDetector
6.0.1
No result found
UAParser
v3.4.5
close LG260closeclosecloseclose0.0156 Detail
UserAgentApiCom

closeclosecloseMobileclosecloseclose0.156 Detail
UserAgentStringCom

Polaris close closecloseclosecloseclose0.078 Detail
WhatIsMyBrowserCom

LGLGLG260closeclosecloseclosecloseclose0.234 Detail
WhichBrowser
v2.0.18
LG260mobile:featureyescloseclose0 Detail
Woothee
v1.2.0
No result found
Wurfl
1.7.1.0
Java Applet close LGLG260Feature Phoneyescloseclose0.0156 Detail
Zsxsoft
1.3
Polaris close LGLG260closeclosecloseclosecloseclose0 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 07:51:28 | by ThaDafinser