User agent detail

Mozilla/4.0 (jig browser web; 1.0.4; KC38)
GeneralDeviceBot
ProviderBrowserEngineOSBrandModelTypeIs mobileIs touchIs botNameTypeParse timeActions
Source result (test suite)
whichbrowser/parser
/tests/data/mobile/browser-jig.yaml
Jig Browser 1.0.4 KyoceraW44Kmobile:featureyes Detail
Providers
BrowscapPhp
6012
yesjig browser webBot/Crawler0.009 Detail
DonatjUAParser
v0.5.0
No result found
NeutrinoApiCom
Jig Browser 1.0.4close KyoceraW44Kmobile-browseryescloseclose0.181 Detail
PiwikDeviceDetector
3.5.2
No result found
SinergiBrowserDetector
6.0.0
Mozilla 4.0close closecloseclosecloseclose0.001 Detail
UAParser
v3.4.5
No result found
UserAgentStringCom
No result found
WhatIsMyBrowserCom
Netscape Navigator 4.0 closeclosecloseclosecloseclose0.579 Detail
WhichBrowser
2.0.10
Jig Browser 1.0.4 KyoceraW44Kmobile:featureyescloseclose0.003 Detail
Woothee
v1.2.0
jig browser 1.0.4closeclosecloseclosemobilephoneclosecloseclose0 Detail
Wurfl
1.6.4
No result found

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 13:33:19 | by ThaDafinser