User agent detail

Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows CE; IEMobile 7.7) PPC; 240x320; HTC P3470; OpVer 29.113.5.722
GeneralDeviceBot
ProviderBrowserEngineOSBrandModelTypeIs mobileIs touchIs botNameTypeParse timeActions
Source result (test suite)
ua-parser/uap-core
vendor/thadafinser/uap-core/tests/test_device.yaml
HTCP3470 Detail
Providers
BrowscapPhp
6012
IEMobile 7.0Trident 3.1WinCE Mobile Phoneyes0.024 Detail
DonatjUAParser
v0.5.0
IEMobile 7.7closeclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
NeutrinoApiCom
IE Mobile 7.7closeWindows HTCArtemis/Cruisermobile-browseryescloseclose0.19802 Detail
PiwikDeviceDetector
3.5.2
IE Mobile 7.7Trident Windows CE HTCP3470smartphoneyes0.008 Detail
SinergiBrowserDetector
6.0.0
Internet Explorer 6.0closeWindows CEclosecloseclosecloseclose0.001 Detail
UAParser
v3.4.5
IE Mobile 7.7closeWindows CE HTCP3470closeclosecloseclose0.002 Detail
UserAgentStringCom
IE Mobile 7.7closeWindows CE closecloseclosecloseclose0.051 Detail
WhatIsMyBrowserCom
Internet Explorer Mobile Windows closeclosecloseclosecloseclose0.46705 Detail
WhichBrowser
2.0.10
Mobile Internet Explorer 6.0 Windows Mobile 6.1HTCPharosmobile:smartyescloseclose0.013 Detail
Woothee
v1.2.0
Internet Explorer 6.0closeclosecloseclosesmartphoneclosecloseclose0 Detail
Wurfl
1.6.4
IE Mobile closeWindows Mobile 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 13:28:29 | by ThaDafinser