User agent detail

E1000 MOT-E1000/80.3F.37I MIB/2.2.1 Profile/MIDP-2.0 Configuration/CLDC-1.1 UP.Link/6.3.0.0.0
GeneralDeviceBot
ProviderBrowserEngineOSBrandModelTypeIs mobileIs touchIs botNameTypeParse timeActions
Source result (test suite)
ua-parser/uap-core
vendor/thadafinser/uap-core/tests/test_device.yaml
MotorolaE1000 Detail
Providers
BrowscapPhp
6012
No result found
DonatjUAParser
v0.5.0
E1000 closeclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
NeutrinoApiCom
Motorola Internet Browser 2.2.1close MotorolaE1000mobile-browseryescloseclose0.199 Detail
PiwikDeviceDetector
3.5.2
MotorolaE1000smartphoneyes0.006 Detail
SinergiBrowserDetector
6.0.0
No result found
UAParser
v3.4.5
close MotorolaE1000closeclosecloseclose0.016 Detail
UserAgentStringCom
MIB 2.2.1close closecloseclosecloseclose0.085 Detail
WhatIsMyBrowserCom
No result found
WhichBrowser
2.0.10
Motorola Internet Browser 2.2.1 MotorolaE1000mobile:featureyescloseclose0.015 Detail
Woothee
v1.2.0
No result found
Wurfl
1.6.4
Opera 11.10closeLinux armv6l Feature Phoneyescloseclose0.014 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 13:27:41 | by ThaDafinser