User agent detail

LG-LG440G/V100[TF013643002325449000000012342147411] Obigo/Q7.3 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 LG440Gclosecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
Providers
BrowscapFull
6014
Teleca-Obigo 7.0 JAVA Mobile Phoneyes0.048 Detail
BrowscapLite
6014
No result found
BrowscapPhp
6014
Teleca-Obigo 7.0closeJAVA closecloseMobile Phoneyesclose0.09 Detail
DonatjUAParser
v0.5.1
LG-LG440G V100closeclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
JenssegersAgent
v2.3.3
ObigoBrowser closeJavaOS closeclosecloseyescloseclose0.001 Detail
NeutrinoApiCom

Obigo closeJVM LGLG440Gmobile-browseryescloseclose0.20801 Detail
PiwikDeviceDetector
3.6.1
Obigo Q7 LG440Gsmartphoneyes0.003 Detail
SinergiBrowserDetector
6.0.1
No result found
UAParser
v3.4.5
Obigo 7.3close LG440Gcloseclosecloseclose0.003 Detail
UserAgentApiCom

Obigo 7.3 closeclosecloseMobileclosecloseclose0.14901 Detail
UserAgentStringCom

No result found
WhatIsMyBrowserCom

Obigo Q7 Browser Q7 LGLGLG440Gcloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0.24401 Detail
WhichBrowser
v2.0.18
Obigo Q 7.3 LG440Gmobile:featureyescloseclose0.001 Detail
Woothee
v1.2.0
No result found
Wurfl
1.7.1.0
Teleca Obigo Q7.3close LGLG440GFeature Phoneyescloseclose0.019 Detail
Zsxsoft
1.3
Obigo Q7.3close LGLG440Gcloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0 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 08:09:53 | by ThaDafinser