User agent detail

LENOVO-ET980/(2005.10.01)Ver1.0.1/WAP2.0 Profile/MIDP-2.0 Configuration/CLDC-1.0/ (compatible; MSIE 4.01; Windows CE; PPC; 240x320)
GeneralDeviceBot
ProviderBrowserEngineOSBrandModelTypeIs mobileIs touchIs botNameTypeParse timeActions
Source result (test suite)
ua-parser/uap-core
vendor/thadafinser/uap-core/tests/test_device.yaml
LenovoET980 Detail
Providers
BrowscapPhp
6012
IEMobile 4.01Trident 3.1WinCE LenovoET980Mobile Phoneyes0.019 Detail
DonatjUAParser
v0.5.0
MSIE 4.01closeclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
NeutrinoApiCom
IE Mobile 4.01closeWindows GenericWindows Mobilemobile-browseryescloseclose0.19502 Detail
PiwikDeviceDetector
3.5.2
Internet Explorer 4.01Trident Windows CE LenovoET980smartphoneyes0.01 Detail
SinergiBrowserDetector
6.0.0
Internet Explorer 4.01closeWindows CEclosecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
UAParser
v3.4.5
IE 4.1closeWindows CE LenovoET980closeclosecloseclose0.002 Detail
UserAgentStringCom
Internet Explorer 4.01closeWindows CE closecloseclosecloseclose0.04601 Detail
WhatIsMyBrowserCom
Internet Explorer 4.1Trident Windows closeclosecloseclosecloseclose0.40504 Detail
WhichBrowser
2.0.10
Mobile Internet Explorer 4.0.1 Windows Mobile LenovoET980mobile:smartyescloseclose0.005 Detail
Woothee
v1.2.0
Internet Explorer 4.01closeclosecloseclosesmartphoneclosecloseclose0.001 Detail
Wurfl
1.6.4
IE Mobile closeWindows Mobile Feature Phoneyescloseclose0.017 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