User agent detail

LG-GU290f/V10f Teleca/Q7.0 Profile/MIDP-2.1 Configuration/CLDC-1.1 Novarra-Vision/8.0
GeneralDeviceBot
ProviderBrowserEngineOSBrandModelTypeIs mobileIs touchIs botNameTypeParse timeActions
Test suite
UAParser
v0.5.0.2
vendor/thadafinser/uap-core/tests/test_device.yaml
close LGGU290fclosecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
Providers
BrowscapFull
6014
Obigo Q 7.0 JAVA Mobile Phoneyes0.025 Detail
BrowscapLite
6014
No result found
BrowscapPhp
6014
Obigo Q 7.0closeJAVA closecloseMobile Phoneyesclose0.044 Detail
DonatjUAParser
v0.5.1
LG-GU290f V10fcloseclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
JenssegersAgent
v2.3.3
closeJavaOS closeclosecloseyescloseclose0.001 Detail
NeutrinoApiCom

Obigo closeJVM LGGU295mobile-browseryescloseclose0.21201 Detail
PiwikDeviceDetector
3.6.1
Obigo LGGU290fsmartphoneyes0.006 Detail
SinergiBrowserDetector
6.0.1
No result found
UAParser
v3.4.5
Teleca Browser close LGGU290fcloseclosecloseclose0.003 Detail
UserAgentApiCom

closeclosecloseMobileclosecloseclose0.15201 Detail
UserAgentStringCom

Teleca-Obigo close closecloseclosecloseclose0.078 Detail
WhatIsMyBrowserCom

Vision Mobile Browser 8.0 LGLGGU290fcloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0.24201 Detail
WhichBrowser
v2.0.18
Novarra Vision 8.0 LGGU290fmobile:featureyescloseclose0.003 Detail
Woothee
v1.2.0
No result found
Wurfl
1.7.1.0
close yescloseclose0.016 Detail
Zsxsoft
1.3
Teleca Q7.0close LGGU290fcloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0.001 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 08:10:51 | by ThaDafinser