User agent detail

dopodT8588/1.0 WindowsMobile/6.5 CEOS/5.2 release/5.0 Opera/9.7 WAP2.0 Profile/MIDP2.0 Configuration/CLDC1.1 4.0 (compatible; MSIE 4.01; Windows CE; PPC)/UCWEB8.2.0.116/31/800

Detected by 7 of 8 providers
As bot detected by 0 of 7

GeneralDeviceBot
ProviderBrowserEngineOSBrandModelTypeIs mobileIs touchIs botNameTypeActions
BrowscapPhp
6011
No result found
DonatjUAParser
v0.5.0
Opera 9.7closeclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclose Detail
PiwikDeviceDetector
3.5.1
Opera 9.7Presto Windows CE DopodT8588feature phoneyes Detail
SinergiBrowserDetector
6.0.0
Opera 9.7closeWindows CEclosecloseclosecloseclose Detail
UAParser
v3.4.5
UC Browser 8.2.0closeWindows Mobile closeclosecloseclose Detail
WhichBrowser
2.0.9
UC Browser 8.2Gecko Windows Mobile 6.5DopodT8588mobile:smartyescloseclose Detail
Woothee
v1.2.0
Internet Explorer 4.01closeclosecloseclosesmartphoneclosecloseclose Detail
Wurfl
1.6.4
IE Mobile closeWindows Mobile Feature Phoneyescloseclose 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 2016-01-26 16:43:23 | by ThaDafinser