User agent detail

LG-GM360/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 GM360 Viewty Snapmobile:featureclosecloseclose0 Detail
Providers
BrowscapFull
6014
Teleca-Obigo JAVA LGGM360Mobile Phoneyes0.005 Detail
BrowscapLite
6014
No result found
BrowscapPhp
6014
Teleca-Obigo closeJAVA closecloseMobile Phoneyesclose0.047 Detail
DonatjUAParser
v0.5.1
LG-GM360 V100closeclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
JenssegersAgent
v2.3.3
ObigoBrowser closeJavaOS closeclosecloseyescloseclose0.001 Detail
NeutrinoApiCom

Obigo closeJVM LGGM360mobile-browseryescloseclose0.20501 Detail
PiwikDeviceDetector
3.6.1
Obigo WAP2 LGGM360smartphoneyes0.003 Detail
SinergiBrowserDetector
6.0.1
No result found
UAParser
v3.4.5
Obigo 2.0close LGGM360closeclosecloseclose0.001 Detail
UserAgentApiCom

Obigo 2.0 closeclosecloseMobileclosecloseclose0.15401 Detail
UserAgentStringCom

No result found
WhatIsMyBrowserCom

Obigo WAP2 Browser WAP2 LGLGGM360closeclosecloseclosecloseclose0.24101 Detail
WhichBrowser
v2.0.18
Obigo WAP 2.0 LGGM360 Viewty Snapmobile:featureyescloseclose0.007 Detail
Woothee
v1.2.0
No result found
Wurfl
1.7.1.0
Java Applet close LGGM360Feature Phoneyescloseclose0.021 Detail
Zsxsoft
1.3
Obigo WAP2.0close LGGM360closeclosecloseclosecloseclose0.001 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 08:02:59 | by ThaDafinser