User agent detail

MOT-KLGO iTunes/0E.30.16R MIB/2.2.1 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
MotorolaKLGO Detail
Providers
BrowscapPhp
6012
Motorola Internet Browser 2.2 MotorolaKLGO iTunesMobile Phoneyes0.01 Detail
DonatjUAParser
v0.5.0
MOT-KLGO closeclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
NeutrinoApiCom
Motorola Internet Browser 2.2.1close Motorolamobile-browseryescloseclose0.197 Detail
PiwikDeviceDetector
3.5.2
iTunes MotorolaKLGOsmartphoneyes0.007 Detail
SinergiBrowserDetector
6.0.0
No result found
UAParser
v3.4.5
close MotorolaKLGOcloseclosecloseclose0.003 Detail
UserAgentStringCom
MIB 2.2.1close closecloseclosecloseclose0.059 Detail
WhatIsMyBrowserCom
iTunes closeclosecloseclosecloseclose0.42 Detail
WhichBrowser
2.0.10
iTunes MotorolaKLGO iTunesmobile:featureyescloseclose0.015 Detail
Woothee
v1.2.0
No result found
Wurfl
1.6.4
Java Applet close MotorolaFeature Phoneyescloseclose0.015 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 13:27:57 | by ThaDafinser