User agent detail

LG-GW300FD/V100 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 LGGW300FDclosecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
Providers
BrowscapFull
6014
Teleca-Obigo JAVA LGGW300FDMobile Phoneyes0.008 Detail
BrowscapLite
6014
No result found
BrowscapPhp
6014
Teleca-Obigo closeJAVA closecloseMobile Phoneyesclose0.051 Detail
DonatjUAParser
v0.5.1
LG-GW300FD V100closeclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
JenssegersAgent
v2.3.3
ObigoBrowser closeJavaOS closeclosecloseyescloseclose0.001 Detail
NeutrinoApiCom

Obigo closeJVM LGLG-GW300FDmobile-browseryescloseclose0.25002 Detail
PiwikDeviceDetector
3.6.1
Obigo WAP2 LGGW300FDsmartphoneyes0.004 Detail
SinergiBrowserDetector
6.0.1
No result found
UAParser
v3.4.5
Obigo 2.0close LGGW300FDcloseclosecloseclose0.002 Detail
UserAgentApiCom

Obigo 2.0 closeclosecloseMobileclosecloseclose0.15101 Detail
UserAgentStringCom

No result found
WhatIsMyBrowserCom

Obigo WAP2 Browser WAP2 LGLGGW300FDcloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0.23601 Detail
WhichBrowser
v2.0.18
Obigo WAP 2.0 LGGW300FDmobile:featureyescloseclose0.001 Detail
Woothee
v1.2.0
No result found
Wurfl
1.7.1.0
Java Applet close LGLG-GW300FDFeature Phoneyescloseclose0.019 Detail
Zsxsoft
1.3
Obigo WAP2.0close LGGW300FDcloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0 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 07:53:16 | by ThaDafinser