User agent detail

Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows CE; IEMobile 6.8) PPC; 240x320; HTC_P3300/1.0 Profile/MIDP-2.0 Configuration/CLDC-1.1
GeneralDeviceBot
ProviderBrowserEngineOSBrandModelTypeIs mobileIs touchIs botNameTypeParse timeActions
Source result (test suite)
ua-parser/uap-core
vendor/thadafinser/uap-core/tests/test_device.yaml
HTCP3300 Detail
Providers
BrowscapPhp
6012
IEMobile 6.8Trident 3.1WinCE Mobile Phoneyes0.037 Detail
DonatjUAParser
v0.5.0
IEMobile 6.8closeclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
NeutrinoApiCom
IE Mobile 6.8closeWindows HTCArtemismobile-browseryescloseclose0.189 Detail
PiwikDeviceDetector
3.5.2
IE Mobile 6.8Trident Windows CE HTCP3300smartphoneyes0.004 Detail
SinergiBrowserDetector
6.0.0
Internet Explorer 6.0closeWindows CEclosecloseclosecloseclose0.001 Detail
UAParser
v3.4.5
IE Mobile 6.8closeWindows CE HTCP3300closeclosecloseclose0.001 Detail
UserAgentStringCom
IE Mobile 6.8closeWindows CE closecloseclosecloseclose0.056 Detail
WhatIsMyBrowserCom
Internet Explorer Mobile Windows closeclosecloseclosecloseclose0.407 Detail
WhichBrowser
2.0.10
Mobile Internet Explorer 6.0 Windows Mobile 6.0HTCP3300mobile:smartyescloseclose0.011 Detail
Woothee
v1.2.0
Internet Explorer 6.0closeclosecloseclosesmartphoneclosecloseclose0.001 Detail
Wurfl
1.6.4
IE Mobile closeWindows Mobile HTCArtemisFeature Phoneyescloseclose0.06001 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 13:26:55 | by ThaDafinser