User agent detail

LENOVO-P708_ENG_RUS_S280/(2006.10.12)S280/WAP1.2.1
GeneralDeviceBot
ProviderBrowserEngineOSBrandModelTypeIs mobileIs touchIs botNameTypeParse timeActions
Source result (test suite)
ua-parser/uap-core
vendor/thadafinser/uap-core/tests/test_device.yaml
LenovoP708_ENG_RUS_S280 Detail
Providers
BrowscapPhp
6012
No result found
DonatjUAParser
v0.5.0
LENOVO-P708 closeclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
NeutrinoApiCom
close LenovoP708 ENG RUS S280mobile-browseryescloseclose0.186 Detail
PiwikDeviceDetector
3.5.2
LenovoP708 ENG RUS S280smartphoneyes0.006 Detail
SinergiBrowserDetector
6.0.0
No result found
UAParser
v3.4.5
close LenovoP708_ENG_RUS_S280closeclosecloseclose0.002 Detail
UserAgentStringCom
No result found
WhatIsMyBrowserCom
No result found
WhichBrowser
2.0.10
LenovoP708 ENG RUS S280mobile:featureyescloseclose0.013 Detail
Woothee
v1.2.0
No result found
Wurfl
1.6.4
close LenovoP708Feature 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 13:29:47 | by ThaDafinser