User agent detail

Vodafone/1.0/HTC_Mercury/1.20.162.3/Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 4.01; Windows CE; MIDP-2.0 Configuration/CLDC-1.1; PPC; 240x320)
GeneralDeviceBot
ProviderBrowserEngineOSBrandModelTypeIs mobileIs touchIs botNameTypeParse timeActions
Source result (test suite)
whichbrowser/parser
/tests/data/mobile/os-windowsmobile.yaml
Mobile Internet Explorer 4.0.1Windows Mobile HTCTyTNmobile:smartyes Detail
Providers
BrowscapPhp
6012
No result found
DonatjUAParser
v0.5.0
MSIE 4.01closeclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
NeutrinoApiCom
IE 4.01closeWindows desktop-browsercloseclose0.256 Detail
PiwikDeviceDetector
3.5.2
Internet Explorer 4.01Trident Windows CE HTCMercurysmartphoneyes0.006 Detail
SinergiBrowserDetector
6.0.0
Internet Explorer 4.01closeWindows CEclosecloseclosecloseclose0.001 Detail
UAParser
v3.4.5
IE 4.1closeWindows CE HTCMercurycloseclosecloseclose0.003 Detail
UserAgentStringCom
Internet Explorer 4.01closeWindows CE closecloseclosecloseclose0.06 Detail
WhatIsMyBrowserCom
Mercury Browser 1.20.162.3 Windows closeclosecloseclosecloseclose0.403 Detail
WhichBrowser
2.0.10
Mobile Internet Explorer 4.0.1 Windows Mobile HTCTyTNmobile:smartyescloseclose0.008 Detail
Woothee
v1.2.0
Internet Explorer 4.01closeclosecloseclosesmartphoneclosecloseclose0 Detail
Wurfl
1.6.4
IE Mobile closeWindows Mobile Vodafonev1605Feature Phoneyescloseclose0.019 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 13:26:05 | by ThaDafinser