User agent detail

LG-CU920/V1.0s Obigo/Q05A Profile/MIDP-2.0 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 Q 5A CU920mobile:featureclosecloseclose0 Detail
Providers
BrowscapFull
6014
Obigo Q 5.0 JAVA LGCU920Mobile Phoneyes0.011 Detail
BrowscapLite
6014
No result found
BrowscapPhp
6014
Obigo Q 5.0closeJAVA closecloseMobile Phoneyesclose0.037 Detail
DonatjUAParser
v0.5.1
LG-CU920 V1.0scloseclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
JenssegersAgent
v2.3.3
ObigoBrowser closeJavaOS closeclosecloseyescloseclose0.001 Detail
NeutrinoApiCom

Obigo closeJVM LGCU920mobile-browseryescloseclose0.20901 Detail
PiwikDeviceDetector
3.6.1
Obigo Q05A LGCU920smartphoneyes0.002 Detail
SinergiBrowserDetector
6.0.1
No result found
UAParser
v3.4.5
Obigo 5close LGCU920closeclosecloseclose0.002 Detail
UserAgentApiCom

Obigo 05 closeclosecloseMobileclosecloseclose0.15801 Detail
UserAgentStringCom

No result found
WhatIsMyBrowserCom

Obigo Q05A Browser Q05A LGLGCU920closeclosecloseclosecloseclose0.24501 Detail
WhichBrowser
v2.0.18
Obigo Q 5A LGCU920mobile:featureyescloseclose0.001 Detail
Woothee
v1.2.0
No result found
Wurfl
1.7.1.0
Teleca Obigo Q05Aclose LGCU920Feature Phoneyesyescloseclose0.024 Detail
Zsxsoft
1.3
Obigo Q05Aclose LGCU920closeclosecloseclosecloseclose0 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 08:04:20 | by ThaDafinser