User agent detail

MOT-C980/80.2F.2E. MIB/2.2.1 Profile/MIDP-2.0 Configuration/CLDC-1.1
GeneralDeviceBot
ProviderBrowserEngineOSBrandModelTypeIs mobileIs touchIs botNameTypeParse timeActions
Source result (test suite)
whichbrowser/parser
/tests/data/mobile/os-feature.yaml
Motorola Internet Browser 2.2.1 MotorolaC980mobile:featureyes Detail
Providers
BrowscapPhp
6012
No result found
DonatjUAParser
v0.5.0
MOT-C980 80.2F.2E.closeclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
NeutrinoApiCom
Motorola Internet Browser 2.2.1close Softbank702sMOmobile-browseryescloseclose0.19402 Detail
PiwikDeviceDetector
3.5.2
MotorolaC980smartphoneyes0.004 Detail
SinergiBrowserDetector
6.0.0
No result found
UAParser
v3.4.5
close MotorolaC980closeclosecloseclose0.006 Detail
UserAgentStringCom
MIB 2.2.1close closecloseclosecloseclose0.052 Detail
WhatIsMyBrowserCom
No result found
WhichBrowser
2.0.10
Motorola Internet Browser 2.2.1 MotorolaC980mobile:featureyescloseclose0.01 Detail
Woothee
v1.2.0
No result found
Wurfl
1.6.4
Java Applet close Softbank702sMOFeature Phoneyescloseclose0.013 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 13:28:09 | by ThaDafinser