User agent detail

Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Linux; Motorola A780; 1005) MOT-A780/R52_G_0D.58.A1R Profile/MIDP-2.0 Configuration/CLDC-1.1 Opera 7.50 [en]
GeneralDeviceBot
ProviderBrowserEngineOSBrandModelTypeIs mobileIs touchIs botNameTypeParse timeActions
Source result (test suite)
ua-parser/uap-core
vendor/thadafinser/uap-core/tests/test_device.yaml
MotorolaA780 Detail
Providers
BrowscapPhp
6012
IE 6.0Trident Windows DesktopDesktop0.024 Detail
DonatjUAParser
v0.5.0
Opera 7.50closeclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0.001 Detail
NeutrinoApiCom
Opera 7.50closeLinux desktop-browsercloseclose0.20502 Detail
PiwikDeviceDetector
3.5.2
Opera 7.50Presto GNU/Linux MotorolaA780smartphoneyes0.011 Detail
SinergiBrowserDetector
6.0.0
Opera 7.50closeLinux closecloseclosecloseclose0.001 Detail
UAParser
v3.4.5
Opera 7.50closeLinux MotorolaA780closeclosecloseclose0.004 Detail
UserAgentStringCom
Opera 7.50closeLinux closecloseclosecloseclose0.05401 Detail
WhatIsMyBrowserCom
Opera 7.50 Linux closeclosecloseclosecloseclose0.41204 Detail
WhichBrowser
2.0.10
Opera Mobile 7.50 Linux MotorolaA780mobile:featureyescloseclose0.018 Detail
Woothee
v1.2.0
Internet Explorer 6.0closeclosecloseclosepcclosecloseclose0 Detail
Wurfl
1.6.4
Java Applet closeLinux MotorolaA780Feature Phoneyescloseclose0.016 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 13:27:18 | by ThaDafinser