User agent detail

Mozilla/5.0 (compatible; DoCoMo/1.0/D505i/c20/TB/W20H10; http://www.rcdtokyo.com/pc2m/)
GeneralDeviceBot
ProviderBrowserEngineOSBrandModelTypeIs mobileIs touchIs botNameTypeParse timeActions
Source result (test suite)
woothee/woothee-testset
/testsets/mobilephone_docomo.yaml
docomo D505idocomo mobilephone Detail
Providers
BrowscapPhp
6012
No result found
DonatjUAParser
v0.5.0
No result found
NeutrinoApiCom
close MitsubishiD505imobile-browseryescloseclose0.17602 Detail
PiwikDeviceDetector
3.5.2
DoCoMoD505ifeature phoneyes0.006 Detail
SinergiBrowserDetector
6.0.0
Mozilla 5.0close closecloseclosecloseclose0.001 Detail
UAParser
v3.4.5
No result found
UserAgentStringCom
No result found
WhatIsMyBrowserCom
Mozilla 5.0 D505icloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0.40604 Detail
WhichBrowser
2.0.10
MitsubishiD505imobile:featureyescloseclose0.004 Detail
Woothee
v1.2.0
docomo D505icloseclosecloseclosemobilephoneclosecloseclose0.001 Detail
Wurfl
1.6.4
Opera 11.10closeLinux armv6l Feature Phoneyescloseclose0.01 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 13:26:20 | by ThaDafinser