User agent detail

SonyEricssonP200/R100 Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Symbian OS; en; 10000320) Opera 9.5
GeneralDeviceBot
ProviderBrowserEngineOSBrandModelTypeIs mobileIs touchIs botNameTypeParse timeActions
Source result (test suite)
ua-parser/uap-core
vendor/thadafinser/uap-core/tests/test_device.yaml
SonyEricssonP200 Detail
Providers
BrowscapPhp
6012
No result found
DonatjUAParser
v0.5.0
Opera 9.5closeclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
NeutrinoApiCom
Opera 9.5closeSymbian OS desktop-browsercloseclose0.20002 Detail
PiwikDeviceDetector
3.5.2
Opera 9.5Presto Symbian OS Sony EricssonP200smartphoneyes0.006 Detail
SinergiBrowserDetector
6.0.0
Opera 9.5close closecloseclosecloseclose0.002 Detail
UAParser
v3.4.5
Opera 9.5closeSymbian OS SonyEricssonP200closeclosecloseclose0.027 Detail
UserAgentStringCom
Opera 9.5closeSymbian OS closecloseclosecloseclose0.06101 Detail
WhatIsMyBrowserCom
Opera 9.5 Symbian Sony EricssonSony Ericsson P200closeclosecloseclosecloseclose0.42104 Detail
WhichBrowser
2.0.10
Opera Mobile 9.5 Sony EricssonP200mobile:featureyescloseclose0.011 Detail
Woothee
v1.2.0
Internet Explorer 6.0closecloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
Wurfl
1.6.4
close SonyEricssonP200Feature Phoneyescloseclose0.048 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 13:32:51 | by ThaDafinser