User agent detail

Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows CE; IEMobile 6.8) Vodafone/1.0/HTC_v3600/1.23.164.7
GeneralDeviceBot
ProviderBrowserEngineOSBrandModelTypeIs mobileIs touchIs botNameTypeParse timeActions
Source result (test suite)
ua-parser/uap-core
vendor/thadafinser/uap-core/tests/test_device.yaml
HTCv3600 Detail
Providers
BrowscapPhp
6012
IEMobile 6.8Trident 3.1WinCE Mobile Phoneyes0.021 Detail
DonatjUAParser
v0.5.0
IEMobile 6.8closeclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0.001 Detail
NeutrinoApiCom
IE Mobile 6.8closeWindows HTCP3600mobile-browseryescloseclose0.191 Detail
PiwikDeviceDetector
3.5.2
IE Mobile 6.8Trident Windows CE HTCv3600smartphoneyes0.003 Detail
SinergiBrowserDetector
6.0.0
Internet Explorer 6.0closeWindows CEclosecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
UAParser
v3.4.5
IE Mobile 6.8closeWindows CE HTCv3600closeclosecloseclose0.003 Detail
UserAgentStringCom
IE Mobile 6.8closeWindows CE closecloseclosecloseclose0.15 Detail
WhatIsMyBrowserCom
Internet Explorer Mobile Windows HTCcloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0.407 Detail
WhichBrowser
2.0.10
Mobile Internet Explorer 6.0 Windows Mobile 6.0HTCv3600mobile:smartyescloseclose0.015 Detail
Woothee
v1.2.0
Internet Explorer 6.0closeclosecloseclosesmartphoneclosecloseclose0.001 Detail
Wurfl
1.6.4
IE Mobile closeWindows Mobile HTCP3600Feature Phoneyescloseclose0.029 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 13:31:39 | by ThaDafinser