User agent detail

MOT-V180ENS/0B.D1.32R MIB/2.2.1 Profile/MIDP-2.0 Configuration/CLDC-1.0
GeneralDeviceBot
ProviderBrowserEngineOSBrandModelTypeIs mobileIs touchIs botNameTypeParse timeActions
Source result (test suite)
ua-parser/uap-core
vendor/thadafinser/uap-core/tests/test_device.yaml
MotorolaV180ENS Detail
Providers
BrowscapPhp
6012
Motorola Internet Browser 2.2 MotorolaV180ENSMobile Phoneyes0.012 Detail
DonatjUAParser
v0.5.0
MOT-V180ENS 0B.D1.32Rcloseclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
NeutrinoApiCom
Motorola Internet Browser 2.2.1close Motorolav180mobile-browseryescloseclose0.20802 Detail
PiwikDeviceDetector
3.5.2
MotorolaV180ENSsmartphoneyes0.005 Detail
SinergiBrowserDetector
6.0.0
No result found
UAParser
v3.4.5
close MotorolaV180ENScloseclosecloseclose0.01 Detail
UserAgentStringCom
MIB 2.2.1close closecloseclosecloseclose0.06901 Detail
WhatIsMyBrowserCom
Opera Mini MotorolaMotorola V180ENScloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0.41504 Detail
WhichBrowser
2.0.10
Motorola Internet Browser 2.2.1 MotorolaV180ENSmobile:featureyescloseclose0.012 Detail
Woothee
v1.2.0
No result found
Wurfl
1.6.4
Java Applet close Motorolav180Feature Phoneyescloseclose0.042 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 13:33:33 | by ThaDafinser