User agent detail

LGE-VI5225
GeneralDeviceBot
ProviderBrowserEngineOSBrandModelTypeIs mobileIs touchIs botNameTypeParse timeActions
Test suite
UAParser
v0.5.0.2
vendor/thadafinser/uap-core/tests/test_device.yaml
close LGVI5225closecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
Providers
BrowscapFull
6014
No result found
BrowscapLite
6014
No result found
BrowscapPhp
6014
No result found
DonatjUAParser
v0.5.1
LGE-VI5225 closeclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
JenssegersAgent
v2.3.3
No result found
NeutrinoApiCom

close LGVI5225mobile-browseryescloseclose0.24601 Detail
PiwikDeviceDetector
3.6.1
LGVI5225smartphoneyes0.007 Detail
SinergiBrowserDetector
6.0.1
No result found
UAParser
v3.4.5
close LGVI5225closeclosecloseclose0.002 Detail
UserAgentApiCom

No result found
UserAgentStringCom

No result found
WhatIsMyBrowserCom

No result found
WhichBrowser
v2.0.18
LGVI5225mobile:featureyescloseclose0.003 Detail
Woothee
v1.2.0
No result found
Wurfl
1.7.1.0
close LGvi5225Feature Phoneyescloseclose0.019 Detail
Zsxsoft
1.3
close LGVI5225closeclosecloseclosecloseclose0.001 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 07:53:45 | by ThaDafinser