User agent detail

MOZILLA40 (COMPATIBLE MSIE 60 WINDOWS CE IEMOBILE 612) PPC 240X320 HTC P3450 OPVER 231022741
GeneralDeviceBot
ProviderBrowserEngineOSBrandModelTypeIs mobileIs touchIs botNameTypeParse timeActions
Source result (test suite)
ua-parser/uap-core
vendor/thadafinser/uap-core/tests/test_device.yaml
HTCP3450 OPVER 231022741 Detail
Providers
BrowscapPhp
6012
No result found
DonatjUAParser
v0.5.0
Edge 612closeclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
NeutrinoApiCom
IE Mobile 612closeWindows mobile-browseryescloseclose0.199 Detail
PiwikDeviceDetector
3.5.2
IE Mobile 612Trident Windows CE HTCP3450 OPVERsmartphoneyes0.004 Detail
SinergiBrowserDetector
6.0.0
Internet Explorer 60closeWindows CEclosecloseclosecloseclose0.001 Detail
UAParser
v3.4.5
close HTCP3450 OPVER 231022741closeclosecloseclose0.012 Detail
UserAgentStringCom
IE Mobile close closecloseclosecloseclose0.054 Detail
WhatIsMyBrowserCom
Internet Explorer Mobile Windows closeclosecloseclosecloseclose0.413 Detail
WhichBrowser
2.0.10
Mobile Internet Explorer 60 Windows Mobile HTCP3450mobile:smartyescloseclose0.006 Detail
Woothee
v1.2.0
No result found
Wurfl
1.6.4
Opera 11.10closeLinux armv6l Feature Phoneyescloseclose0.013 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 13:35:06 | by ThaDafinser