User agent detail

LG-LG840G/V100[TF013293005445552024363913344521363] Obigo/Q7.3 Profile/MIDP-2.1 Configuration/CLDC-1.1
GeneralDeviceBot
ProviderBrowserEngineOSBrandModelTypeIs mobileIs touchIs botNameTypeParse timeActions
Test suite
WhichBrowser
v2.0.18
vendor/whichbrowser/parser/tests/data/mobile/os-feature.yaml
Obigo Q 7.3 840Gmobile:featureclosecloseclose0 Detail
Providers
BrowscapFull
6014
Teleca-Obigo 7.0 JAVA Mobile Phoneyes0.052 Detail
BrowscapLite
6014
No result found
BrowscapPhp
6014
Teleca-Obigo 7.0closeJAVA closecloseMobile Phoneyesclose0.09501 Detail
DonatjUAParser
v0.5.1
LG-LG840G V100closeclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
JenssegersAgent
v2.3.3
ObigoBrowser closeJavaOS closeclosecloseyescloseclose0.001 Detail
NeutrinoApiCom

Obigo closeJVM LGLG 840Gmobile-browseryescloseclose0.20701 Detail
PiwikDeviceDetector
3.6.1
Obigo Q7 LG840Gsmartphoneyes0.006 Detail
SinergiBrowserDetector
6.0.1
No result found
UAParser
v3.4.5
Obigo 7.3close LG840Gcloseclosecloseclose0.004 Detail
UserAgentApiCom

Obigo 7.3 closeclosecloseMobileclosecloseclose0.15101 Detail
UserAgentStringCom

No result found
WhatIsMyBrowserCom

Obigo Q7 Browser Q7 LGLGLG840Gcloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0.23501 Detail
WhichBrowser
v2.0.18
Obigo Q 7.3 LG840Gmobile:featureyescloseclose0.003 Detail
Woothee
v1.2.0
No result found
Wurfl
1.7.1.0
Teleca Obigo Q7.3close LGLG 840GFeature Phoneyescloseclose0.026 Detail
Zsxsoft
1.3
Obigo Q7.3close LGLG840Gcloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0 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 08:12:16 | by ThaDafinser