User agent detail

MOT-A1200r/1.0 LinuxOS/2.4.20 Release/8.22.2006 Browser/Opera8.00 Profile/MIDP-2.0 Configuration/CLDC-1.1 Software/R541_G_11.52.08R
GeneralDeviceBot
ProviderBrowserEngineOSBrandModelTypeIs mobileIs touchIs botNameTypeParse timeActions
Source result (test suite)
whichbrowser/parser
/tests/data/mobile/os-ezxlinux.yaml
Opera Mobile 8.00EZX Linux MotorolaA1200rmobile:featureyes Detail
Providers
BrowscapPhp
6012
Opera Mobile 8.00Presto 2.2Linux Smartphone OS Mobile Phoneyes0.017 Detail
DonatjUAParser
v0.5.0
MOT-A1200r 1.0closeclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
NeutrinoApiCom
Opera Mobile 8.00closeEZX Linux MotorolaA1200rmobile-browseryescloseclose0.20602 Detail
PiwikDeviceDetector
3.5.2
MotorolaA1200rsmartphoneyes0.009 Detail
SinergiBrowserDetector
6.0.0
Opera MIDP-2.0closeLinux closecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
UAParser
v3.4.5
closeLinux MotorolaA1200rcloseclosecloseclose0.004 Detail
UserAgentStringCom
Opera 8.00closeLinux closecloseclosecloseclose0.09601 Detail
WhatIsMyBrowserCom
Opera Linux closeclosecloseclosecloseclose0.40404 Detail
WhichBrowser
2.0.10
Opera Mobile 8.00 EZX Linux MotorolaA1200rmobile:featureyescloseclose0.011 Detail
Woothee
v1.2.0
Opera closeclosecloseclosepcclosecloseclose0 Detail
Wurfl
1.6.4
Java Applet closeLinux MotorolaA1200Feature Phoneyesyescloseclose0.018 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 2016-02-13 13:25:08 | by ThaDafinser