User agent detail

LG-MG296 Obigo/WAP2.0 MIDP-2.0/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 LGMG296closecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
Providers
BrowscapFull
6014
Teleca-Obigo JAVA Mobile Phoneyes0.015 Detail
BrowscapLite
6014
No result found
BrowscapPhp
6014
Teleca-Obigo closeJAVA closecloseMobile Phoneyesclose0.036 Detail
DonatjUAParser
v0.5.1
LG-MG296 closeclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
JenssegersAgent
v2.3.3
ObigoBrowser closeJavaOS closeclosecloseyescloseclose0.001 Detail
NeutrinoApiCom

Obigo WAP 2.0close LGMG296mobile-browseryescloseclose0.27602 Detail
PiwikDeviceDetector
3.6.1
Obigo WAP2 LGMG296smartphoneyes0.006 Detail
SinergiBrowserDetector
6.0.1
No result found
UAParser
v3.4.5
Obigo 2.0close LGMG296closeclosecloseclose0.001 Detail
UserAgentApiCom

Obigo 2.0 closeclosecloseMobileclosecloseclose0.15101 Detail
UserAgentStringCom

No result found
WhatIsMyBrowserCom

Obigo WAP2 Browser WAP2 LGLGMG296closeclosecloseclosecloseclose0.23601 Detail
WhichBrowser
v2.0.18
Obigo WAP 2.0 LGMG296mobile:featureyescloseclose0.005 Detail
Woothee
v1.2.0
No result found
Wurfl
1.7.1.0
Java Applet close LGMG296Feature Phoneyescloseclose0.04 Detail
Zsxsoft
1.3
Obigo WAP2.0close LGMG296closeclosecloseclosecloseclose0 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 07:53:15 | by ThaDafinser