User agent detail

MOT-MOTOROKRE6/1.0 LinuxOS/2.4.20 Release/8.4.2006 Browser/Opera8.00 Profile/MIDP2.0 Configuration/CLDC1.1 Software/R533_G_11.10.54R
GeneralDeviceBot
ProviderBrowserEngineOSBrandModelTypeIs mobileIs touchIs botNameTypeParse timeActions
Source result (test suite)
ua-parser/uap-core
vendor/thadafinser/uap-core/tests/test_device.yaml
MotorolaMOTOROKRE6 Detail
Providers
BrowscapPhp
6012
No result found
DonatjUAParser
v0.5.0
MOT-MOTOROKRE6 1.0closeclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
NeutrinoApiCom
Opera Mobile 8.00closeEZX Linux MotorolaMOTOROKRE6mobile-browseryescloseclose0.18802 Detail
PiwikDeviceDetector
3.5.2
MotorolaMOTOROKRE6smartphoneyes0.005 Detail
SinergiBrowserDetector
6.0.0
Opera MIDP2.0closeLinux closecloseclosecloseclose0.001 Detail
UAParser
v3.4.5
closeLinux MotorolaMOTOROKRE6closeclosecloseclose0.013 Detail
UserAgentStringCom
Opera 8.00closeLinux closecloseclosecloseclose0.16702 Detail
WhatIsMyBrowserCom
Opera Linux closeclosecloseclosecloseclose0.41004 Detail
WhichBrowser
2.0.10
Opera Mobile 8.00 EZX Linux MotorolaMOTOROKRE6mobile:featureyescloseclose0.011 Detail
Woothee
v1.2.0
Opera closeclosecloseclosepcclosecloseclose0 Detail
Wurfl
1.6.4
Java Applet closeLinux MotorolaMOTOROKR E6Feature Phoneyesyescloseclose0.038 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 13:26:41 | by ThaDafinser