User agent detail

CELKON.C64/R2AE SEMC-Browser/4.0.3 Profile/MIDP-2.0 Configuration/CLDC-1.1
GeneralDeviceBot
ProviderBrowserEngineOSBrandModelTypeIs mobileIs touchIs botNameTypeParse timeActions
Source result (test suite)
piwik/device-detector
/Tests/fixtures/smartphone.yml
SEMC-Browser 4.0.3 CelkonC64smartphoneyes Detail
Providers
BrowscapPhp
6012
SEMC Browser JAVA Mobile Phoneyes0.024 Detail
DonatjUAParser
v0.5.0
CELKON closeclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
NeutrinoApiCom
SEMC Browser 4.0.3close CelkonC64mobile-browseryescloseclose0.21502 Detail
PiwikDeviceDetector
3.5.2
SEMC-Browser 4.0 CelkonC64smartphoneyes0.006 Detail
SinergiBrowserDetector
6.0.0
No result found
UAParser
v3.4.5
SEMC-Browser 4.0close closeclosecloseclose0.004 Detail
UserAgentStringCom
SEMC-Browser 4.0.3close closecloseclosecloseclose0.14401 Detail
WhatIsMyBrowserCom
No result found
WhichBrowser
2.0.10
SEMC Browser 4.0.3 CelkonC64mobile:featureyescloseclose0.01 Detail
Woothee
v1.2.0
No result found
Wurfl
1.6.4
Opera 11.10closeLinux armv6l Feature Phoneyescloseclose0.009 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 13:34:29 | by ThaDafinser