User agent detail

Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Linux; Motorola E895; 1447) MOT-E895/EZXBASE_N_00.39.A4I Profile/MIDP-2.0 Configuration/CLDC-1.1 Opera 8.00 [en]
GeneralDeviceBot
ProviderBrowserEngineOSBrandModelTypeIs mobileIs touchIs botNameTypeParse timeActions
Source result (test suite)
ua-parser/uap-core
vendor/thadafinser/uap-core/tests/test_device.yaml
MotorolaE895 Detail
Providers
BrowscapPhp
6012
IE 6.0Trident Windows DesktopDesktop0.028 Detail
DonatjUAParser
v0.5.0
Opera 8.00closeclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
NeutrinoApiCom
Opera 8.00closeLinux desktop-browsercloseclose0.19502 Detail
PiwikDeviceDetector
3.5.2
Opera 8.00Presto GNU/Linux EzzeEZXBASEfeature phoneyes0.004 Detail
SinergiBrowserDetector
6.0.0
Opera 8.00closeLinux closecloseclosecloseclose0.001 Detail
UAParser
v3.4.5
Opera 8.0closeLinux MotorolaE895closeclosecloseclose0.02 Detail
UserAgentStringCom
Opera 8.00closeLinux closecloseclosecloseclose0.04601 Detail
WhatIsMyBrowserCom
Opera 8.0 Linux closeclosecloseclosecloseclose0.46005 Detail
WhichBrowser
2.0.10
Opera Mobile 8.00 Linux MotorolaE895mobile:featureyescloseclose0.012 Detail
Woothee
v1.2.0
Internet Explorer 6.0closeclosecloseclosepcclosecloseclose0 Detail
Wurfl
1.6.4
Java Applet closeLinux MotorolaA780Feature Phoneyescloseclose0.035 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 13:32:09 | by ThaDafinser