User agent detail

LENOVO-P902/(2005.03.28)Ver1.0.4/WAP2.0 Profile/MIDP-1.0 Configuration/CLDC-1.0
GeneralDeviceBot
ProviderBrowserEngineOSBrandModelTypeIs mobileIs touchIs botNameTypeParse timeActions
Test suite
UAParser
v0.5.0.2
vendor/thadafinser/uap-core/tests/test_device.yaml
close LenovoP902closecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
Providers
BrowscapFull
6014
Lenovo JAVA Mobile Phoneyes0.01 Detail
BrowscapLite
6014
No result found
BrowscapPhp
6014
Lenovo closeJAVA closecloseMobile Phoneyesclose0.023 Detail
DonatjUAParser
v0.5.1
LENOVO-P902 closeclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
JenssegersAgent
v2.3.3
closeJavaOS closeclosecloseyescloseclose0.005 Detail
NeutrinoApiCom

close LenovoP902mobile-browseryescloseclose0.20301 Detail
PiwikDeviceDetector
3.6.1
LenovoP902smartphoneyes0.003 Detail
SinergiBrowserDetector
6.0.1
No result found
UAParser
v3.4.5
close LenovoP902closeclosecloseclose0.001 Detail
UserAgentApiCom

closeclosecloseMobileclosecloseclose0.15101 Detail
UserAgentStringCom

No result found
WhatIsMyBrowserCom

No result found
WhichBrowser
v2.0.18
LenovoP902mobile:featureyescloseclose0.001 Detail
Woothee
v1.2.0
No result found
Wurfl
1.7.1.0
Java Applet close Feature Phoneyescloseclose0.017 Detail
Zsxsoft
1.3
close LenovoP902closeclosecloseclosecloseclose0 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 08:11:01 | by ThaDafinser