User agent detail

LG-GU295f/V10a Teleca/Q7.0 Profile/MIDP-2.0 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 LGGU295fclosecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
Providers
BrowscapFull
6014
Obigo Q 7.0 JAVA Mobile Phoneyes0.018 Detail
BrowscapLite
6014
No result found
BrowscapPhp
6014
Obigo Q 7.0closeJAVA closecloseMobile Phoneyesclose0.051 Detail
DonatjUAParser
v0.5.1
LG-GU295f V10acloseclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
JenssegersAgent
v2.3.3
closeJavaOS closeclosecloseyescloseclose0.004 Detail
NeutrinoApiCom

Obigo closeJVM LGGU295mobile-browseryescloseclose0.20801 Detail
PiwikDeviceDetector
3.6.1
Obigo LGGU295fsmartphoneyes0.009 Detail
SinergiBrowserDetector
6.0.1
No result found
UAParser
v3.4.5
Teleca Browser close LGGU295fcloseclosecloseclose0.005 Detail
UserAgentApiCom

closeclosecloseMobileclosecloseclose0.15101 Detail
UserAgentStringCom

Teleca-Obigo close closecloseclosecloseclose0.062 Detail
WhatIsMyBrowserCom

LGLGGU295fcloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0.25801 Detail
WhichBrowser
v2.0.18
Obigo Q 7.0 LGGU295fmobile:featureyescloseclose0.001 Detail
Woothee
v1.2.0
No result found
Wurfl
1.7.1.0
Java Applet close LGGU295Feature Phoneyescloseclose0.03 Detail
Zsxsoft
1.3
Teleca Q7.0close LGGU295fcloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0 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 08:07:06 | by ThaDafinser