User agent detail

LGE-LG160V AU-OBIGO/Q04C1-1.17 MMP/2.0
GeneralDeviceBot
ProviderBrowserEngineOSBrandModelTypeIs mobileIs touchIs botNameTypeParse timeActions
Test suite
UAParser
v0.5.0.2
vendor/thadafinser/uap-core/tests/test_device.yaml
close LG160Vclosecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
Providers
BrowscapFull
6014
No result found
BrowscapLite
6014
No result found
BrowscapPhp
6014
No result found
DonatjUAParser
v0.5.1
LGE-LG160V closeclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
JenssegersAgent
v2.3.3
ObigoBrowser close closeclosecloseyescloseclose0.001 Detail
NeutrinoApiCom

Obigo Q 4close LGLG160Vmobile-browseryescloseclose0.21001 Detail
PiwikDeviceDetector
3.6.1
LG160Vsmartphoneyes0.002 Detail
SinergiBrowserDetector
6.0.1
No result found
UAParser
v3.4.5
Obigo 4.1close LG160Vcloseclosecloseclose0.001 Detail
UserAgentApiCom

No result found
UserAgentStringCom

No result found
WhatIsMyBrowserCom

Obigo Q04C1 Browser Q04C1 closeclosecloseclosecloseclose0.23701 Detail
WhichBrowser
v2.0.18
Obigo Q 4C LG160Vmobile:featureyescloseclose0.003 Detail
Woothee
v1.2.0
No result found
Wurfl
1.7.1.0
close LGLG160VFeature Phoneyescloseclose0.02 Detail
Zsxsoft
1.3
Obigo Q04C1close LGLG160Vcloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0 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 08:04:17 | by ThaDafinser