User agent detail

MOT-MOTOQA1/A2.00.52R1 BER2.2 Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; 13003388) Profile/MIDP-2.0 Configuration/CLDC-1.1 Opera 8.60 [en]
GeneralDeviceBot
ProviderBrowserEngineOSBrandModelTypeIs mobileIs touchIs botNameTypeParse timeActions
Source result (test suite)
ua-parser/uap-core
vendor/thadafinser/uap-core/tests/test_device.yaml
MotorolaMOTOQA1 Detail
Providers
BrowscapPhp
6012
No result found
DonatjUAParser
v0.5.0
Opera 8.60closeclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0.001 Detail
NeutrinoApiCom
Opera 8.60close desktop-browsercloseclose0.18402 Detail
PiwikDeviceDetector
3.5.2
Opera 8.60Presto MotorolaMOTOQA1smartphoneyes0.005 Detail
SinergiBrowserDetector
6.0.0
Opera 8.60close closecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
UAParser
v3.4.5
Opera 8.60close MotorolaMOTOQA1closeclosecloseclose0.009 Detail
UserAgentStringCom
Opera 8.60close closecloseclosecloseclose0.11401 Detail
WhatIsMyBrowserCom
Opera 8.60 closeclosecloseclosecloseclose0.41904 Detail
WhichBrowser
2.0.10
Opera Mini MotorolaKarma QA1mobile:featureyescloseclose0.007 Detail
Woothee
v1.2.0
Internet Explorer 6.0closecloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
Wurfl
1.6.4
Java Applet close MotorolaQA1Feature Phoneyescloseclose0.019 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 13:30:19 | by ThaDafinser