User agent detail

LG-KG280 Obigo
GeneralDeviceBot
ProviderBrowserEngineOSBrandModelTypeIs mobileIs touchIs botNameTypeParse timeActions
Test suite
UAParser
v0.5.0.2
vendor/thadafinser/uap-core/tests/test_device.yaml
close LGKG280closecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
Providers
BrowscapFull
6014
No result found
BrowscapLite
6014
No result found
BrowscapPhp
6014
No result found
DonatjUAParser
v0.5.1
LG-KG280 closeclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
JenssegersAgent
v2.3.3
ObigoBrowser close closeclosecloseyescloseclose0.003 Detail
NeutrinoApiCom

Obigo close LGKG280mobile-browseryescloseclose0.24301 Detail
PiwikDeviceDetector
3.6.1
Obigo LGKG280smartphoneyes0.005 Detail
SinergiBrowserDetector
6.0.1
No result found
UAParser
v3.4.5
close LGKG280closeclosecloseclose0.005 Detail
UserAgentApiCom

No result found
UserAgentStringCom

No result found
WhatIsMyBrowserCom

Obigo Browser LGLGKG280closeclosecloseclosecloseclose0.25001 Detail
WhichBrowser
v2.0.18
Obigo LGKG280mobile:featureyescloseclose0.002 Detail
Woothee
v1.2.0
No result found
Wurfl
1.7.1.0
Teleca Obigo close LGKG280Feature Phoneyescloseclose0.026 Detail
Zsxsoft
1.3
Obigo close LGKG280closeclosecloseclosecloseclose0 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 08:05:24 | by ThaDafinser