User agent detail

HTCArtist/112161 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
HTCArtist Detail
Providers
BrowscapPhp
6012
Pocket PC WinCE Mobile Phoneyes0.024 Detail
DonatjUAParser
v0.5.0
MSIE 4.01closeclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0.001 Detail
NeutrinoApiCom
IE 4.01closeWindows desktop-browsercloseclose0.186 Detail
PiwikDeviceDetector
3.5.2
Internet Explorer 4.01Trident Windows CE HTCArtistsmartphoneyes0.007 Detail
SinergiBrowserDetector
6.0.0
Internet Explorer 4.01closeWindows CEclosecloseclosecloseclose0.001 Detail
UAParser
v3.4.5
IE 4.1closeWindows CE HTCArtistcloseclosecloseclose0.001 Detail
UserAgentStringCom
Internet Explorer 4.01closeWindows CE closecloseclosecloseclose0.048 Detail
WhatIsMyBrowserCom
Internet Explorer 4.1Trident Windows closeclosecloseclosecloseclose0.402 Detail
WhichBrowser
2.0.10
Mobile Internet Explorer 4.0.1 Windows CE HTCArtistmobile:featureyescloseclose0.019 Detail
Woothee
v1.2.0
Internet Explorer 4.01closeclosecloseclosesmartphoneclosecloseclose0 Detail
Wurfl
1.6.4
IE Mobile closeWindows Mobile VodafoneVPA Compact IVFeature Phoneyescloseclose0.042 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 13:26:42 | by ThaDafinser