User agent detail

Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.O; windows CE; IEMobile 8.12; MSIEMobile 6.0) acer_S200
GeneralDeviceBot
ProviderBrowserEngineOSBrandModelTypeIs mobileIs touchIs botNameTypeParse timeActions
Source result (test suite)
piwik/device-detector
/Tests/fixtures/smartphone.yml
IE Mobile 8.12Windows CE Trident AcerS200smartphone Detail
Providers
BrowscapPhp
6012
No result found
DonatjUAParser
v0.5.0
IEMobile 8.12closeclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0.001 Detail
NeutrinoApiCom
IE Mobile 8.12closeWindows AcerAcer S200mobile-browseryescloseclose0.19302 Detail
PiwikDeviceDetector
3.5.2
IE Mobile 8.12Trident Windows CE AcerS200smartphoneyes0.006 Detail
SinergiBrowserDetector
6.0.0
Internet Explorer 6.OcloseWindows CEclosecloseclosecloseclose0.001 Detail
UAParser
v3.4.5
IE Mobile 8.12close closeclosecloseclose0.024 Detail
UserAgentStringCom
IE Mobile 8.12close closecloseclosecloseclose0.05401 Detail
WhatIsMyBrowserCom
Internet Explorer Mobile Windows closeclosecloseclosecloseclose0.42204 Detail
WhichBrowser
2.0.10
Mobile Internet Explorer 6 Windows Mobile AcerneoTouch S200mobile:smartyescloseclose0.008 Detail
Woothee
v1.2.0
Internet Explorer closecloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
Wurfl
1.6.4
IE Mobile closeWindows Mobile AcerAcer S200Feature Phoneyesyescloseclose0.025 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 13:28:12 | by ThaDafinser