User agent detail

Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Motorola ROKR E2) MOT-ROKR E2/R564_G_12.00.20R Profile/MIDP-2.0 Configuration/CLDC-1.1 Opera 8.50 [zh-tw]
GeneralDeviceBot
ProviderBrowserEngineOSBrandModelTypeIs mobileIs touchIs botNameTypeParse timeActions
Source result (test suite)
ua-parser/uap-core
vendor/thadafinser/uap-core/tests/test_device.yaml
MotorolaROKR Detail
Providers
BrowscapPhp
6012
IE 6.0Trident Windows DesktopDesktop0.021 Detail
DonatjUAParser
v0.5.0
Opera 8.50closeclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
NeutrinoApiCom
Opera 8.50close desktop-browsercloseclose0.19702 Detail
PiwikDeviceDetector
3.5.2
Opera 8.50Presto MotorolaROKRsmartphoneyes0.004 Detail
SinergiBrowserDetector
6.0.0
Opera 8.50close closecloseclosecloseclose0.001 Detail
UAParser
v3.4.5
Opera 8.50close MotorolaROKRcloseclosecloseclose0.005 Detail
UserAgentStringCom
Opera 8.50close closecloseclosecloseclose0.05701 Detail
WhatIsMyBrowserCom
Opera 8.50 closeclosecloseclosecloseclose0.40904 Detail
WhichBrowser
2.0.10
Opera Mobile 8.50 MotorolaROKR E2) MOT-ROKR E2mobile:featureyescloseclose0.014 Detail
Woothee
v1.2.0
Internet Explorer 6.0closecloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
Wurfl
1.6.4
Java Applet closeLinux MotorolaA780Feature Phoneyescloseclose0.013 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 13:32:44 | by ThaDafinser