User agent detail

dopodT5388/1.0 WindowsMobile/6.1 CEOS/5.2 release/1.6 Opera/9.5 WAP2.0 Profile/MIDP2.0 Configuration/CLDC1.1 (compatible; MSIE 4.01; Windows CE; PPC)/UCWEB8.2.0.116/31/999
GeneralDeviceBot
ProviderBrowserEngineOSBrandModelTypeIs mobileIs touchIs botNameTypeParse timeActions
Source result (test suite)
whichbrowser/parser
/tests/data/mobile/os-windowsmobile.yaml
UC Browser 8.2Windows Mobile 6.1Gecko DopodTouch Diamond 2mobile:smartyes Detail
Providers
BrowscapPhp
6012
No result found
DonatjUAParser
v0.5.0
Opera 9.5closeclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
NeutrinoApiCom
UC Browser closeWindows GenericWindows Mobilemobile-browseryescloseclose0.18502 Detail
PiwikDeviceDetector
3.5.2
Opera 9.5Presto Windows CE DopodT5388feature phoneyes0.003 Detail
SinergiBrowserDetector
6.0.0
Opera 9.5closeWindows CEclosecloseclosecloseclose0.001 Detail
UAParser
v3.4.5
UC Browser 8.2.0closeWindows Mobile closeclosecloseclose0.02 Detail
UserAgentStringCom
Opera 9.5closeWindows CE closecloseclosecloseclose0.07501 Detail
WhatIsMyBrowserCom
UC Browser 8.2.0.116 Windows closeclosecloseclosecloseclose0.41204 Detail
WhichBrowser
2.0.10
UC Browser 8.2Gecko Windows Mobile 6.1DopodT5388mobile:smartyescloseclose0.005 Detail
Woothee
v1.2.0
Internet Explorer 4.01closeclosecloseclosesmartphoneclosecloseclose0.001 Detail
Wurfl
1.6.4
IE Mobile closeWindows Mobile Feature Phoneyescloseclose0.013 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