User agent detail

40 (COMPATIBLE MSIE 60 WINDOWS CE IEMOBILE 612) SP 240X320 HTC_S730
GeneralDeviceBot
ProviderBrowserEngineOSBrandModelTypeIs mobileIs touchIs botNameTypeParse timeActions
Source result (test suite)
ua-parser/uap-core
vendor/thadafinser/uap-core/tests/test_device.yaml
HTCS730 Detail
Providers
BrowscapPhp
6012
No result found
DonatjUAParser
v0.5.0
Edge 612closeclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0.001 Detail
NeutrinoApiCom
IE Mobile 612closeWindows mobile-browseryescloseclose0.186 Detail
PiwikDeviceDetector
3.5.2
IE Mobile 612Trident Windows CE HTCS730smartphoneyes0.004 Detail
SinergiBrowserDetector
6.0.0
Internet Explorer 60closeWindows CEclosecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
UAParser
v3.4.5
close HTCS730closeclosecloseclose0.013 Detail
UserAgentStringCom
IE Mobile close closecloseclosecloseclose0.049 Detail
WhatIsMyBrowserCom
Internet Explorer Mobile Windows HTCcloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0.468 Detail
WhichBrowser
2.0.10
Mobile Internet Explorer 60 Windows Mobile HTCS730 Wingsmobile:smartyescloseclose0.006 Detail
Woothee
v1.2.0
No result found
Wurfl
1.6.4
Opera 11.10closeLinux armv6l Feature Phoneyescloseclose0.012 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 13:30:50 | by ThaDafinser