User agent detail

Mozilla/3.0 (DDIPOCKET;JRC/AH-J3001V,AH-J3002V/1.0/0100/c50) CNF/2.0
GeneralDeviceBot
ProviderBrowserEngineOSBrandModelTypeIs mobileIs touchIs botNameTypeParse timeActions
Source result (test suite)
whichbrowser/parser
/tests/data/mobile/carrier-willcom.yaml
CNF 2.0 JRCAH-J3001Vmobile:featureyes Detail
Providers
BrowscapPhp
6012
No result found
DonatjUAParser
v0.5.0
No result found
NeutrinoApiCom
Compact NetFront 2.0close JRCAH-J3001Vmobile-browseryescloseclose0.17798 Detail
PiwikDeviceDetector
3.5.2
No result found
SinergiBrowserDetector
6.0.0
Pocket Internet Explorer 3.0 (DDIPOCKET;JRCclose closecloseyesclosecloseclose0.001 Detail
UAParser
v3.4.5
No result found
UserAgentStringCom
No result found
WhatIsMyBrowserCom
Netscape Navigator 3.0 closeclosecloseclosecloseclose0.46495 Detail
WhichBrowser
2.0.10
Compact NetFront 2.0 JRCAH-J3001Vmobile:featureyescloseclose0.004 Detail
Woothee
v1.2.0
WILLCOM AH-J3001V,AH-J3002Vcloseclosecloseclosemobilephoneclosecloseclose0.001 Detail
Wurfl
1.6.4
closeLinux Japan Radio CompanyWX330JFeature Phoneyescloseclose0.06301 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 13:34:54 | by ThaDafinser