User agent detail

Celtius-Communicator/3.8.0.9, MOT-V3i/08.B5.86R MIB/2.2.1 Profile/MIDP-2.0 Configuration/CLDC-1.1, MOT-V3i/08.B5.86R MIB/2.2.1 Profile/MIDP-2.0 Config
GeneralDeviceBot
ProviderBrowserEngineOSBrandModelTypeIs mobileIs touchIs botNameTypeParse timeActions
Source result (test suite)
ua-parser/uap-core
vendor/thadafinser/uap-core/tests/test_device.yaml
MotorolaV3i Detail
Providers
BrowscapPhp
6012
No result found
DonatjUAParser
v0.5.0
Celtius-Communicator 3.8.0.9closeclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
NeutrinoApiCom
Motorola Internet Browser 2.2.1close MotorolaV3imobile-browseryescloseclose0.19902 Detail
PiwikDeviceDetector
3.5.2
MotorolaV3ismartphoneyes0.006 Detail
SinergiBrowserDetector
6.0.0
No result found
UAParser
v3.4.5
close MotorolaV3icloseclosecloseclose0.002 Detail
UserAgentStringCom
MIB 2.2.1close closecloseclosecloseclose0.057 Detail
WhatIsMyBrowserCom
Opera Mini MotorolaMotorola V3icloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0.41004 Detail
WhichBrowser
2.0.10
Motorola Internet Browser 2.2.1 MotorolaV3imobile:featureyescloseclose0.011 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 13:34:10 | by ThaDafinser