User agent detail

Mozilla/5.0(compatible; Teleca Q7; 4.0.3; U; en) 240X480 LGE LG-LG9600
GeneralDeviceBot
ProviderBrowserEngineOSBrandModelTypeIs mobileIs touchIs botNameTypeParse timeActions
Test suite
UAParser
v0.5.0.2
vendor/thadafinser/uap-core/tests/test_device.yaml
close LGLG9600closecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
Providers
BrowscapFull
6014
No result found
BrowscapLite
6014
No result found
BrowscapPhp
6014
No result found
DonatjUAParser
v0.5.1
No result found
JenssegersAgent
v2.3.3
Mozilla close closecloseclosecloseclose0.002 Detail
NeutrinoApiCom

Obigo Q 7close LGLG9600mobile-browseryescloseclose0.22001 Detail
PiwikDeviceDetector
3.6.1
Obigo LGLGsmartphoneyes0.006 Detail
SinergiBrowserDetector
6.0.1
Mozilla 5.0(compatible;close closecloseclosecloseclose0.001 Detail
UAParser
v3.4.5
Teleca Browser close LGLG9600closeclosecloseclose0.003 Detail
UserAgentApiCom

No result found
UserAgentStringCom

Teleca-Obigo Q7close closecloseclosecloseclose0.068 Detail
WhatIsMyBrowserCom

Mozilla 5.0 LGLGLG9600closeclosecloseclosecloseclose0.24201 Detail
WhichBrowser
v2.0.18
Obigo Q 7 LG9600mobile:featureyescloseclose0.002 Detail
Woothee
v1.2.0
No result found
Wurfl
1.7.1.0
close LGLG9600Feature Phoneyescloseclose0.02 Detail
Zsxsoft
1.3
Teleca Q7close LGLGcloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0.001 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 07:59:43 | by ThaDafinser