User agent detail

LG-LG900G/V100[TF012192001015834487725017156907356] Obigo/WAP2.0 Profile/MIDP-2.1 Configuration/CLDC-1.1,gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe)
GeneralDeviceBot
ProviderBrowserEngineOSBrandModelTypeIs mobileIs touchIs botNameTypeParse timeActions
Test suite
UAParser
v0.5.0.2
vendor/thadafinser/uap-core/tests/test_device.yaml
close LG900Gclosecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
Providers
BrowscapFull
6014
Teleca-Obigo JAVA Mobile Phoneyes0.052 Detail
BrowscapLite
6014
No result found
BrowscapPhp
6014
Teleca-Obigo closeJAVA closecloseMobile Phoneyesclose0.09201 Detail
DonatjUAParser
v0.5.1
LG-LG900G V100closeclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
JenssegersAgent
v2.3.3
ObigoBrowser closeJavaOS closeclosecloseyescloseclose0.001 Detail
NeutrinoApiCom

Obigo closeJVM LGLG900Gmobile-browseryescloseclose0.21201 Detail
PiwikDeviceDetector
3.6.1
Obigo WAP2 LG900Gsmartphoneyes0.003 Detail
SinergiBrowserDetector
6.0.1
No result found
UAParser
v3.4.5
Obigo 2.0close LG900Gcloseclosecloseclose0.004 Detail
UserAgentApiCom

Obigo 2.0 closeclosecloseMobileclosecloseclose0.15601 Detail
UserAgentStringCom

No result found
WhatIsMyBrowserCom

Obigo WAP2 Browser WAP2 LGLGLG900Gcloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0.39602 Detail
WhichBrowser
v2.0.18
Obigo WAP 2.0 LG900Gmobile:featureyescloseclose0.002 Detail
Woothee
v1.2.0
No result found
Wurfl
1.7.1.0
Java Applet close LGLG900GFeature Phoneyescloseclose0.024 Detail
Zsxsoft
1.3
Obigo WAP2.0close LGLG900Gcloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0 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 08:00:06 | by ThaDafinser