User agent detail

Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Linux; Motorola E690; 781) MOT-A1200/R532C2_G_11.30.04I Profile/MIDP-2.0 Configuration/CLDC-1.1 Opera 8.00 [zh-cn]
GeneralDeviceBot
ProviderBrowserEngineOSBrandModelTypeIs mobileIs touchIs botNameTypeParse timeActions
Source result (test suite)
ua-parser/uap-core
vendor/thadafinser/uap-core/tests/test_device.yaml
MotorolaA1200 Detail
Providers
BrowscapPhp
6012
IE 6.0Trident Windows DesktopDesktop0.02 Detail
DonatjUAParser
v0.5.0
Opera 8.00closeclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
NeutrinoApiCom
Opera 8.00closeLinux desktop-browsercloseclose0.19802 Detail
PiwikDeviceDetector
3.5.2
Opera 8.00Presto GNU/Linux MotorolaE690smartphoneyes0.007 Detail
SinergiBrowserDetector
6.0.0
Opera 8.00closeLinux closecloseclosecloseclose0.001 Detail
UAParser
v3.4.5
Opera 8.0closeLinux MotorolaA1200closeclosecloseclose0.005 Detail
UserAgentStringCom
Opera 8.00closeLinux closecloseclosecloseclose0.047 Detail
WhatIsMyBrowserCom
Opera 8.0 Linux closeclosecloseclosecloseclose0.40704 Detail
WhichBrowser
2.0.10
Opera Mobile 8.00 Linux MotorolaE690mobile:featureyescloseclose0.023 Detail
Woothee
v1.2.0
Internet Explorer 6.0closeclosecloseclosepcclosecloseclose0 Detail
Wurfl
1.6.4
Java Applet closeLinux MotorolaA780Feature 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 13:29:15 | by ThaDafinser