User agent detail

LENOVO-P902/(2005.03.28)Ver1.0.4/WAP2.0 Profile/MIDP-1.0 Configuration/CLDC-1.0
GeneralDeviceBot
ProviderBrowserEngineOSBrandModelTypeIs mobileIs touchIs botNameTypeParse timeActions
Source result (test suite)
ua-parser/uap-core
vendor/thadafinser/uap-core/tests/test_device.yaml
LenovoP902 Detail
Providers
BrowscapPhp
6012
Lenovo JAVA Mobile Phoneyes0.013 Detail
DonatjUAParser
v0.5.0
LENOVO-P902 closeclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
NeutrinoApiCom
close LenovoP902mobile-browseryescloseclose0.18702 Detail
PiwikDeviceDetector
3.5.2
LenovoP902smartphoneyes0.007 Detail
SinergiBrowserDetector
6.0.0
No result found
UAParser
v3.4.5
close LenovoP902closeclosecloseclose0.002 Detail
UserAgentStringCom
No result found
WhatIsMyBrowserCom
No result found
WhichBrowser
2.0.10
LenovoP902mobile:featureyescloseclose0.011 Detail
Woothee
v1.2.0
No result found
Wurfl
1.6.4
Opera 11.10closeLinux armv6l Feature Phoneyescloseclose0.015 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 13:31:52 | by ThaDafinser