User agent detail

Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; KYOCERA/AH-K3001V/1.7.2.70.000000/0.1) Opera 7.0 [ja]
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
IE 6.0Trident Windows DesktopDesktop0.019 Detail
DonatjUAParser
v0.5.0
Opera 7.0closeclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
NeutrinoApiCom
Opera 7.0close desktop-browsercloseclose0.18202 Detail
PiwikDeviceDetector
3.5.2
Opera 7.0Presto KyoceraAHsmartphoneyes0.005 Detail
SinergiBrowserDetector
6.0.0
Opera 7.0close closecloseclosecloseclose0.001 Detail
UAParser
v3.4.5
Opera 7.0close closeclosecloseclose0.01 Detail
UserAgentStringCom
Opera 7.0close closecloseclosecloseclose0.07101 Detail
WhatIsMyBrowserCom
Opera 7.0 closeclosecloseclosecloseclose0.43404 Detail
WhichBrowser
2.0.10
Opera Mobile 7.0 KyoceraAH-K3001Vmobile:featureyescloseclose0.004 Detail
Woothee
v1.2.0
Internet Explorer 6.0closecloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
Wurfl
1.6.4
Opera 7.54closeWindows XPDesktopcloseclose0.008 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 13:31:55 | by ThaDafinser