User agent detail

Mozilla/5.0 (compatible; OSS/1.0; Chameleon; Linux) MOT-EM30/Imperfecto_Lite_v10.3 BER/2.0 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
MotorolaEM30 Detail
Providers
BrowscapPhp
6012
No result found
DonatjUAParser
v0.5.0
No result found
NeutrinoApiCom
closeLinux MotorolaEM30mobile-browseryescloseclose0.21202 Detail
PiwikDeviceDetector
3.5.2
GNU/Linux MotorolaEM30smartphoneyes0.008 Detail
SinergiBrowserDetector
6.0.0
Mozilla 5.0closeLinux closecloseclosecloseclose0.001 Detail
UAParser
v3.4.5
closeLinux MotorolaEM30closeclosecloseclose0.003 Detail
UserAgentStringCom
No result found
WhatIsMyBrowserCom
5.0 Linux closeclosecloseclosecloseclose0.40504 Detail
WhichBrowser
2.0.10
Linux MotorolaEM30mobile:featureyescloseclose0.011 Detail
Woothee
v1.2.0
closeclosecloseclosepcclosecloseclose0 Detail
Wurfl
1.6.4
Opera 11.10closeLinux armv6l Feature Phoneyescloseclose0.027 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 13:28:37 | by ThaDafinser