User agent detail

ALCATEL_ONE_TOUCH_768T/1.0 Profile/MIDP-2.0 Configuration/CLDC-1.1 ObigoInternetBrowser/Q05A
GeneralDeviceBot
ProviderBrowserEngineOSBrandModelTypeIs mobileIs touchIs botNameTypeParse timeActions
Test suite
WhichBrowser
v2.0.18
vendor/whichbrowser/parser/tests/data/mobile/os-feature.yaml
Obigo Q 5A One Touch 768Tmobile:featureclosecloseclose0 Detail
Providers
BrowscapFull
6014
Obigo Q 5.0 JAVA Mobile Phoneyes0.041 Detail
BrowscapLite
6014
No result found
BrowscapPhp
6014
Obigo Q 5.0closeJAVA closecloseMobile Phoneyesclose0.09201 Detail
DonatjUAParser
v0.5.1
ALCATEL closeclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
JenssegersAgent
v2.3.3
UCBrowser closeJavaOS closeclosecloseyescloseclose0.001 Detail
NeutrinoApiCom

Obigo closeJVM T-MobileOT-768Tmobile-browseryescloseclose0.20401 Detail
PiwikDeviceDetector
3.6.1
Obigo Q05A AlcatelONE TOUCH 768Tsmartphoneyes0.005 Detail
SinergiBrowserDetector
6.0.1
No result found
UAParser
v3.4.5
Obigo close closeclosecloseclose0.004 Detail
UserAgentApiCom

Obigo 05 closeclosecloseMobileclosecloseclose0.15701 Detail
UserAgentStringCom

No result found
WhatIsMyBrowserCom

Obigo Browser closeclosecloseclosecloseclose0.24201 Detail
WhichBrowser
v2.0.18
Obigo Q 5A AlcatelOne Touch 768Tmobile:featureyescloseclose0.004 Detail
Woothee
v1.2.0
No result found
Wurfl
1.7.1.0
Teleca Obigo Q05Aclose T-MobileOT-768TFeature Phoneyescloseclose0.02 Detail
Zsxsoft
1.3
Obigo InternetBrowserclose closeclosecloseclosecloseclose0 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 08:07:52 | by ThaDafinser