User agent detail

LG-KG320 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 LGKG320closecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
Providers
BrowscapFull
6014
Teleca-Obigo JAVA LGKG320Mobile Phoneyes0.008 Detail
BrowscapLite
6014
No result found
BrowscapPhp
6014
Teleca-Obigo closeJAVA closecloseMobile Phoneyesclose0.03 Detail
DonatjUAParser
v0.5.1
LG-KG320 closeclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
JenssegersAgent
v2.3.3
closeJavaOS closeclosecloseyescloseclose0.001 Detail
NeutrinoApiCom

close LGKG320mobile-browseryescloseclose0.25201 Detail
PiwikDeviceDetector
3.6.1
LGKG320smartphoneyes0.004 Detail
SinergiBrowserDetector
6.0.1
No result found
UAParser
v3.4.5
close LGKG320closeclosecloseclose0.002 Detail
UserAgentApiCom

closeclosecloseMobileclosecloseclose0.15201 Detail
UserAgentStringCom

No result found
WhatIsMyBrowserCom

LGLGKG320closeclosecloseclosecloseclose0.23401 Detail
WhichBrowser
v2.0.18
Obigo WAP 2.0 LGKG320mobile:featureyescloseclose0.003 Detail
Woothee
v1.2.0
No result found
Wurfl
1.7.1.0
Java Applet close LGKG320Feature Phoneyescloseclose0.024 Detail
Zsxsoft
1.3
close LGKG320closeclosecloseclosecloseclose0 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 07:54:09 | by ThaDafinser