User agent detail

LG-LG620G/V10b Obigo/WAP2.0 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 LG620Gclosecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
Providers
BrowscapFull
6014
Teleca-Obigo JAVA Mobile Phoneyes0.0312 Detail
BrowscapLite
6014
No result found
BrowscapPhp
6014
Teleca-Obigo closeJAVA closecloseMobile Phoneyesclose0.0468 Detail
DonatjUAParser
v0.5.1
LG-LG620G V10bcloseclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
JenssegersAgent
v2.3.3
ObigoBrowser closeJavaOS closeclosecloseyescloseclose0 Detail
NeutrinoApiCom

Obigo closeJVM LGLG-LG620Gmobile-browseryescloseclose0.2184 Detail
PiwikDeviceDetector
3.6.1
Obigo WAP2 LG620Gsmartphoneyes0 Detail
SinergiBrowserDetector
6.0.1
No result found
UAParser
v3.4.5
Obigo 2.0close LG620Gcloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
UserAgentApiCom

Obigo 2.0 closeclosecloseMobileclosecloseclose0.156 Detail
UserAgentStringCom

No result found
WhatIsMyBrowserCom

Obigo WAP2 Browser WAP2 LGLGLG620Gcloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0.234 Detail
WhichBrowser
v2.0.18
Obigo WAP 2.0 LG620Gmobile:featureyescloseclose0 Detail
Woothee
v1.2.0
No result found
Wurfl
1.7.1.0
Java Applet close LGLG-LG620GFeature Phoneyescloseclose0.0156 Detail
Zsxsoft
1.3
Obigo WAP2.0close LGLG620Gcloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0 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 07:51:50 | by ThaDafinser