User agent detail

LG-LG500G/V100[TFXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX] Obigo/WAP2.0 Profile/MIDP-2.1 Configuration/CLDC-1.1
GeneralDeviceBot
ProviderBrowserEngineOSBrandModelTypeIs mobileIs touchIs botNameTypeParse timeActions
Test suite
UAParser
v0.5.0.2
vendor/thadafinser/uap-core/tests/test_device.yaml
close LG500Gclosecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
Providers
BrowscapFull
6014
Teleca-Obigo JAVA Mobile Phoneyes0.05 Detail
BrowscapLite
6014
No result found
BrowscapPhp
6014
Teleca-Obigo closeJAVA closecloseMobile Phoneyesclose0.09201 Detail
DonatjUAParser
v0.5.1
LG-LG500G V100closeclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0.001 Detail
JenssegersAgent
v2.3.3
ObigoBrowser closeJavaOS closeclosecloseyescloseclose0.001 Detail
NeutrinoApiCom

Obigo closeJVM LG500Gmobile-browseryescloseclose0.22401 Detail
PiwikDeviceDetector
3.6.1
Obigo WAP2 LG500Gsmartphoneyes0.008 Detail
SinergiBrowserDetector
6.0.1
No result found
UAParser
v3.4.5
Obigo 2.0close LG500Gcloseclosecloseclose0.007 Detail
UserAgentApiCom

Obigo 2.0 closeclosecloseMobileclosecloseclose0.15701 Detail
UserAgentStringCom

No result found
WhatIsMyBrowserCom

Obigo WAP2 Browser WAP2 LGLGLG500Gcloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0.23401 Detail
WhichBrowser
v2.0.18
Obigo WAP 2.0 LG500Gmobile:featureyescloseclose0.005 Detail
Woothee
v1.2.0
No result found
Wurfl
1.7.1.0
Java Applet close LG500GFeature Phoneyescloseclose0.025 Detail
Zsxsoft
1.3
Obigo WAP2.0close LGLG500Gcloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0.001 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 08:07:03 | by ThaDafinser