User agent detail

MOT-EM326g/1.0 Release/03.23.2009 Browser/CMCS1.0 Software/1.64F Profile/MIDP-2.0 Configuration/CLDC-1.1[TF0118060019046111795126618505496792] UP.Link
GeneralDeviceBot
ProviderBrowserEngineOSBrandModelTypeIs mobileIs touchIs botNameTypeParse timeActions
Source result (test suite)
ua-parser/uap-core
vendor/thadafinser/uap-core/tests/test_device.yaml
MotorolaEM326g Detail
Providers
BrowscapPhp
6012
No result found
DonatjUAParser
v0.5.0
MOT-EM326g 1.0closeclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
NeutrinoApiCom
close MotorolaEM326gmobile-browseryescloseclose0.19702 Detail
PiwikDeviceDetector
3.5.2
MotorolaEM326gsmartphoneyes0.006 Detail
SinergiBrowserDetector
6.0.0
No result found
UAParser
v3.4.5
close MotorolaEM326gcloseclosecloseclose0.002 Detail
UserAgentStringCom
No result found
WhatIsMyBrowserCom
No result found
WhichBrowser
2.0.10
MotorolaEM326gmobile:featureyescloseclose0.014 Detail
Woothee
v1.2.0
No result found
Wurfl
1.6.4
Java Applet close MotorolaEM326gFeature Phoneyescloseclose0.025 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 13:34:23 | by ThaDafinser