User agent detail

Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows CE; IEMobile 7.11) PPC; 240x320; HTC_Touch_Viva_T2223; Op
GeneralDeviceBot
ProviderBrowserEngineOSBrandModelTypeIs mobileIs touchIs botNameTypeParse timeActions
Source result (test suite)
ua-parser/uap-core
vendor/thadafinser/uap-core/tests/test_device.yaml
HTCTouch Viva T2223 Detail
Providers
BrowscapPhp
6012
IEMobile 7.11Trident 3.1WinCE Mobile Phoneyes0.021 Detail
DonatjUAParser
v0.5.0
IEMobile 7.11closeclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
NeutrinoApiCom
IE Mobile 7.11closeWindows HTCHTC Touch Viva T2223mobile-browseryescloseclose0.182 Detail
PiwikDeviceDetector
3.5.2
IE Mobile 7.11Trident Windows CE HTCTouch Viva T2223smartphoneyes0.004 Detail
SinergiBrowserDetector
6.0.0
Internet Explorer 6.0closeWindows CEclosecloseclosecloseclose0.001 Detail
UAParser
v3.4.5
IE Mobile 7.11closeWindows CE HTCTouch Viva T2223closeclosecloseclose0.004 Detail
UserAgentStringCom
IE Mobile 7.11closeWindows CE closecloseclosecloseclose0.065 Detail
WhatIsMyBrowserCom
Internet Explorer Mobile Windows closeclosecloseclosecloseclose0.428 Detail
WhichBrowser
2.0.10
Mobile Internet Explorer 6.0 Windows Mobile 6.1HTCTouch Vivamobile:smartyescloseclose0.004 Detail
Woothee
v1.2.0
Internet Explorer 6.0closeclosecloseclosesmartphoneclosecloseclose0 Detail
Wurfl
1.6.4
IE Mobile closeWindows Mobile HTCHTC Touch Viva T2223Feature 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 13:30:45 | by ThaDafinser