User agent detail

JBED PROFILE/MIDP-20 CONFIGURATION/CLDC-11 UNTRUSTED/10/VODAFONE/HTC_POLARIS/1251633
GeneralDeviceBot
ProviderBrowserEngineOSBrandModelTypeIs mobileIs touchIs botNameTypeParse timeActions
Source result (test suite)
ua-parser/uap-core
vendor/thadafinser/uap-core/tests/test_device.yaml
HTCPOLARIS Detail
Providers
BrowscapPhp
6012
No result found
DonatjUAParser
v0.5.0
JBED closeclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
NeutrinoApiCom
Polaris 1251633closeJVM mobile-browseryescloseclose0.18402 Detail
PiwikDeviceDetector
3.5.2
HTCPOLARISsmartphoneyes0.004 Detail
SinergiBrowserDetector
6.0.0
No result found
UAParser
v3.4.5
close HTCPOLARIScloseclosecloseclose0.003 Detail
UserAgentStringCom
Polaris close closecloseclosecloseclose0.04601 Detail
WhatIsMyBrowserCom
HTCcloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0.40304 Detail
WhichBrowser
2.0.10
Polaris 1251633 Windows Mobile HTCTouch Cruisemobile:smartyescloseclose0.006 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 13:32:34 | by ThaDafinser