User agent detail

GiONEE_TD200_TD/00.00 ThreadX_OS/04.00 SC8800G/G2 Release/03.25.2011 Browser/NF3.5 Profile/MIDP-2.1 Config/CLDC-1.1
GeneralDeviceBot
ProviderBrowserEngineOSBrandModelTypeIs mobileIs touchIs botNameTypeParse timeActions
Source result (test suite)
whichbrowser/parser
/tests/data/mobile/browser-netfront.yaml
NetFront 3.5ThreadX 04.00 GioneeTD200mobile:featureyes Detail
Providers
BrowscapPhp
6012
No result found
DonatjUAParser
v0.5.0
GiONEE closeclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
NeutrinoApiCom
NetFront 3.5closeThreadX 04.00GioneeTD200mobile-browseryescloseclose0.209 Detail
PiwikDeviceDetector
3.5.2
ThreadX GioneeTD200feature phoneyes0.007 Detail
SinergiBrowserDetector
6.0.0
No result found
UAParser
v3.4.5
close closeclosecloseclose0.008 Detail
UserAgentStringCom
No result found
WhatIsMyBrowserCom
No result found
WhichBrowser
2.0.10
NetFront 3.5 ThreadX 04.00GioneeTD200mobile:featureyescloseclose0.012 Detail
Woothee
v1.2.0
No result found
Wurfl
1.6.4
Opera 11.10closeLinux armv6l Feature Phoneyescloseclose0.012 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 13:27:13 | by ThaDafinser