User agent detail

LG-TG800 MIC/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 LGTG800closecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
Providers
BrowscapFull
6014
Teleca-Obigo JAVA Mobile Phoneyes0.011 Detail
BrowscapLite
6014
No result found
BrowscapPhp
6014
Teleca-Obigo closeJAVA closecloseMobile Phoneyesclose0.028 Detail
DonatjUAParser
v0.5.1
LG-TG800 closeclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
JenssegersAgent
v2.3.3
closeJavaOS closeclosecloseyescloseclose0.001 Detail
NeutrinoApiCom

close LGTG800mobile-browseryescloseclose0.23501 Detail
PiwikDeviceDetector
3.6.1
LGTG800smartphoneyes0.006 Detail
SinergiBrowserDetector
6.0.1
No result found
UAParser
v3.4.5
close LGTG800closeclosecloseclose0.001 Detail
UserAgentApiCom

closeclosecloseMobileclosecloseclose0.15301 Detail
UserAgentStringCom

No result found
WhatIsMyBrowserCom

LGLGTG800closeclosecloseclosecloseclose0.23701 Detail
WhichBrowser
v2.0.18
Obigo WAP 2.0 LGTG800mobile:featureyescloseclose0.001 Detail
Woothee
v1.2.0
No result found
Wurfl
1.7.1.0
Java Applet close LGTG800Feature Phoneyescloseclose0.023 Detail
Zsxsoft
1.3
close LGTG800closeclosecloseclosecloseclose0.001 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