User agent detail

dopodT8588/1.0 WindowsMobile/6.5 CEOS/5.2 release/5.0 Opera/9.7 WAP2.0 Profile/MIDP2.0 Configuration/CLDC1.1
GeneralDeviceBot
ProviderBrowserEngineOSBrandModelTypeIs mobileIs touchIs botNameTypeParse timeActions
Source result (test suite)
whichbrowser/parser
/tests/data/mobile/header-wap.yaml
Opera Mobile 9.7Windows Mobile 6.5 DopodT8588mobile:smartyes Detail
Providers
BrowscapPhp
6012
No result found
DonatjUAParser
v0.5.0
Opera 9.7closeclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
NeutrinoApiCom
Opera Mobile 9.7closeWindows Mobile 6.5DopodT8588mobile-browseryescloseclose0.187 Detail
PiwikDeviceDetector
3.5.2
Opera 9.7Presto Windows DopodT8588feature phoneyes0.006 Detail
SinergiBrowserDetector
6.0.0
Opera 9.7close closecloseclosecloseclose0.001 Detail
UAParser
v3.4.5
Opera 9.7closeWindows Mobile closeclosecloseclose0.001 Detail
UserAgentStringCom
Opera 9.7close closecloseclosecloseclose0.052 Detail
WhatIsMyBrowserCom
Opera 9.7 Windows closeclosecloseclosecloseclose0.404 Detail
WhichBrowser
2.0.10
Opera Mobile 9.7 Windows Mobile 6.5DopodT8588mobile:smartyescloseclose0.008 Detail
Woothee
v1.2.0
Opera 9.7closeclosecloseclosepcclosecloseclose0 Detail
Wurfl
1.6.4
Opera 11.10closeLinux armv6l Feature Phoneyescloseclose0.009 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 13:29:44 | by ThaDafinser