User agent detail

LG-MG105 MIC/WAP2.0 MIDP-2.0/CLDC-1.0
GeneralDeviceBot
ProviderBrowserEngineOSBrandModelTypeIs mobileIs touchIs botNameTypeParse timeActions
Test suite
UAParser
v0.5.0.2
vendor/thadafinser/uap-core/tests/test_device.yaml
close LGMG105closecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
Providers
BrowscapFull
6014
Teleca-Obigo JAVA LGMG105Mobile Phoneyes0.007 Detail
BrowscapLite
6014
No result found
BrowscapPhp
6014
Teleca-Obigo closeJAVA closecloseMobile Phoneyesclose0.039 Detail
DonatjUAParser
v0.5.1
LG-MG105 closeclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
JenssegersAgent
v2.3.3
closeJavaOS closeclosecloseyescloseclose0.007 Detail
NeutrinoApiCom

close LGMG105mobile-browseryescloseclose0.21501 Detail
PiwikDeviceDetector
3.6.1
LGMG105smartphoneyes0.002 Detail
SinergiBrowserDetector
6.0.1
No result found
UAParser
v3.4.5
close LGMG105closeclosecloseclose0.001 Detail
UserAgentApiCom

closeclosecloseMobileclosecloseclose0.15101 Detail
UserAgentStringCom

No result found
WhatIsMyBrowserCom

LGLGMG105closeclosecloseclosecloseclose0.23601 Detail
WhichBrowser
v2.0.18
Obigo WAP 2.0 LGMG105mobile:featureyescloseclose0.003 Detail
Woothee
v1.2.0
No result found
Wurfl
1.7.1.0
Java Applet close LGMG105Feature Phoneyescloseclose0.024 Detail
Zsxsoft
1.3
close LGMG105closeclosecloseclosecloseclose0 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 08:00:21 | by ThaDafinser