User agent detail

HTCGemini/131169 Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 4.01; Windows CE; PPC; 240x320)
GeneralDeviceBot
ProviderBrowserEngineOSBrandModelTypeIs mobileIs touchIs botNameTypeParse timeActions
Source result (test suite)
ua-parser/uap-core
vendor/thadafinser/uap-core/tests/test_device.yaml
HTCGemini Detail
Providers
BrowscapPhp
6012
Pocket PC WinCE Mobile Phoneyes0.034 Detail
DonatjUAParser
v0.5.0
MSIE 4.01closeclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
NeutrinoApiCom
IE 4.01closeWindows desktop-browsercloseclose0.19902 Detail
PiwikDeviceDetector
3.5.2
Internet Explorer 4.01Trident Windows CE HTCGeminismartphoneyes0.006 Detail
SinergiBrowserDetector
6.0.0
Internet Explorer 4.01closeWindows CEclosecloseclosecloseclose0.001 Detail
UAParser
v3.4.5
IE 4.1closeWindows CE HTCGeminicloseclosecloseclose0.002 Detail
UserAgentStringCom
Internet Explorer 4.01closeWindows CE closecloseclosecloseclose0.044 Detail
WhatIsMyBrowserCom
Internet Explorer 4.1Trident Windows closeclosecloseclosecloseclose0.40204 Detail
WhichBrowser
2.0.10
Mobile Internet Explorer 4.0.1 Windows CE HTCGeminimobile:featureyescloseclose0.021 Detail
Woothee
v1.2.0
Internet Explorer 4.01closeclosecloseclosesmartphoneclosecloseclose0 Detail
Wurfl
1.6.4
IE Mobile closeWindows Mobile HTCGeminiFeature Phoneyescloseclose0.029 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 13:26:25 | by ThaDafinser