User agent detail

LG-GT350/V100 Obigo/WAP2.0 Profile/MIDP-2.1 Configuration/CLDC-1.1
GeneralDeviceBot
ProviderBrowserEngineOSBrandModelTypeIs mobileIs touchIs botNameTypeParse timeActions
Test suite
WhichBrowser
v2.0.18
vendor/whichbrowser/parser/tests/data/mobile/browser-obigo.yaml
Obigo WAP 2.0 GT350mobile:featureclosecloseclose0 Detail
Providers
BrowscapFull
6014
Teleca-Obigo JAVA LGGT350Mobile Phoneyes0.005 Detail
BrowscapLite
6014
No result found
BrowscapPhp
6014
Teleca-Obigo closeJAVA closecloseMobile Phoneyesclose0.042 Detail
DonatjUAParser
v0.5.1
LG-GT350 V100closeclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0.001 Detail
JenssegersAgent
v2.3.3
ObigoBrowser closeJavaOS closeclosecloseyescloseclose0.001 Detail
NeutrinoApiCom

Obigo closeJVM LGLG-GT350mobile-browseryescloseclose0.20701 Detail
PiwikDeviceDetector
3.6.1
Obigo WAP2 LGGT350smartphoneyes0.01 Detail
SinergiBrowserDetector
6.0.1
No result found
UAParser
v3.4.5
Obigo 2.0close LGGT350closeclosecloseclose0.003 Detail
UserAgentApiCom

Obigo 2.0 closeclosecloseMobileclosecloseclose0.15201 Detail
UserAgentStringCom

No result found
WhatIsMyBrowserCom

Obigo WAP2 Browser WAP2 LGLGGT350closeclosecloseclosecloseclose0.25101 Detail
WhichBrowser
v2.0.18
Obigo WAP 2.0 LGGT350mobile:featureyescloseclose0.001 Detail
Woothee
v1.2.0
No result found
Wurfl
1.7.1.0
Java Applet close LGLG-GT350Feature Phoneyesyescloseclose0.025 Detail
Zsxsoft
1.3
Obigo WAP2.0close LGGT350closeclosecloseclosecloseclose0.001 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 08:00:12 | by ThaDafinser