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/AP: A1200 Legend V2
GeneralDeviceBot
ProviderBrowserEngineOSBrandModelTypeIs mobileIs touchIs botNameTypeParse timeActions
Source result (test suite)
ua-parser/uap-core
vendor/thadafinser/uap-core/tests/test_device.yaml
MotorolaA1200r Detail
Providers
BrowscapPhp
6012
Opera Mobile 8.00Presto 2.2Linux Smartphone OS Mobile Phoneyes0.008 Detail
DonatjUAParser
v0.5.0
MOT-A1200r 1.0closeclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
NeutrinoApiCom
Opera Mobile 8.00closeLinux MotorolaA1200rmobile-browseryescloseclose0.19102 Detail
PiwikDeviceDetector
3.5.2
MotorolaA1200rsmartphoneyes0.005 Detail
SinergiBrowserDetector
6.0.0
Opera MIDP-2.0closeLinux closecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
UAParser
v3.4.5
closeLinux MotorolaA1200rcloseclosecloseclose0.002 Detail
UserAgentStringCom
Opera 8.00closeLinux closecloseclosecloseclose0.05901 Detail
WhatIsMyBrowserCom
Opera Linux closeclosecloseclosecloseclose0.40504 Detail
WhichBrowser
2.0.10
Opera Mobile 8.00 Linux MotorolaA1200rmobile:featureyescloseclose0.01 Detail
Woothee
v1.2.0
Opera closeclosecloseclosepcclosecloseclose0 Detail
Wurfl
1.6.4
Java Applet closeLinux MotorolaA1200Feature Phoneyesyescloseclose0.015 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 13:26:32 | by ThaDafinser