User agent detail

LG-C395/V10e Obigo/Q7.3 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 LGC395closecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
Providers
BrowscapFull
6014
Teleca-Obigo 7.0 JAVA Mobile Phoneyes0.02 Detail
BrowscapLite
6014
No result found
BrowscapPhp
6014
Teleca-Obigo 7.0closeJAVA closecloseMobile Phoneyesclose0.043 Detail
DonatjUAParser
v0.5.1
LG-C395 V10ecloseclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
JenssegersAgent
v2.3.3
ObigoBrowser closeJavaOS closeclosecloseyescloseclose0 Detail
NeutrinoApiCom

Obigo closeJVM LGC395mobile-browseryescloseclose0.21001 Detail
PiwikDeviceDetector
3.6.1
Obigo Q7 LGC395smartphoneyes0.003 Detail
SinergiBrowserDetector
6.0.1
No result found
UAParser
v3.4.5
Obigo 7.3close LGC395closeclosecloseclose0.001 Detail
UserAgentApiCom

Obigo 7.3 closeclosecloseMobileclosecloseclose0.14901 Detail
UserAgentStringCom

No result found
WhatIsMyBrowserCom

Obigo Q7 Browser Q7 LGLGC395closeclosecloseclosecloseclose0.23401 Detail
WhichBrowser
v2.0.18
Obigo Q 7.3 LGC395mobile:featureyescloseclose0.004 Detail
Woothee
v1.2.0
No result found
Wurfl
1.7.1.0
Teleca Obigo Q7.3close LGC395Feature Phoneyesyescloseclose0.02 Detail
Zsxsoft
1.3
Obigo Q7.3close LGC395closeclosecloseclosecloseclose0 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 07:59:34 | by ThaDafinser