User agent detail

Mozilla/3.0(DDIPOCKET;KYOCERA/AH-K3001V/1.4.1.67.000000/0.1/C100) Opera 7.0
GeneralDeviceBot
ProviderBrowserEngineOSBrandModelTypeIs mobileIs touchIs botNameTypeParse timeActions
Source result (test suite)
whichbrowser/parser
/tests/data/mobile/carrier-willcom.yaml
Opera Mobile 7.0 KyoceraAH-K3001Vmobile:featureyes Detail
Providers
BrowscapPhp
6012
No result found
DonatjUAParser
v0.5.0
Opera 7.0closeclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
NeutrinoApiCom
Opera 7.0close desktop-browsercloseclose0.179 Detail
PiwikDeviceDetector
3.5.2
Opera 7.0Presto KyoceraAHsmartphoneyes0.007 Detail
SinergiBrowserDetector
6.0.0
Pocket Internet Explorer 3.0(DDIPOCKET;KYOCERAclose closecloseyesclosecloseclose0 Detail
UAParser
v3.4.5
Opera 7.0close closeclosecloseclose0.003 Detail
UserAgentStringCom
Opera 7.0close closecloseclosecloseclose0.117 Detail
WhatIsMyBrowserCom
Opera 7.0 closeclosecloseclosecloseclose0.408 Detail
WhichBrowser
2.0.10
Opera Mobile 7.0 KyoceraAH-K3001Vmobile:featureyescloseclose0.004 Detail
Woothee
v1.2.0
Opera AH-K3001Vcloseclosecloseclosemobilephoneclosecloseclose0 Detail
Wurfl
1.6.4
Opera 7.54closeWindows XPDesktopcloseclose0.009 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 13:31:28 | by ThaDafinser