User agent detail

HTC_Touch_Diamond2_T5353 Opera/9.50 (Windows NT 5.1; U; en)
GeneralDeviceBot
ProviderBrowserEngineOSBrandModelTypeIs mobileIs touchIs botNameTypeParse timeActions
Source result (test suite)
ua-parser/uap-core
vendor/thadafinser/uap-core/tests/test_device.yaml
HTCTouch_Diamond2_T5353 Detail
Providers
BrowscapPhp
6012
Opera Mobile 9.50Presto 2.2 HTCTouch Diamond2 T5353Mobile Phoneyes0.028 Detail
DonatjUAParser
v0.5.0
Opera 9.50closeclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0.001 Detail
NeutrinoApiCom
Opera Mobile 9.50closeWindows 5.1HTCTouch Diamond 2mobile-browseryescloseclose0.187 Detail
PiwikDeviceDetector
3.5.2
Opera 9.50Presto Windows XPHTCTouch Diamond2 T5353smartphoneyes0.003 Detail
SinergiBrowserDetector
6.0.0
Opera 9.50closeWindows XPclosecloseclosecloseclose0.001 Detail
UAParser
v3.4.5
Opera 9.50closeWindows XP HTCTouch_Diamond2_T5353closeclosecloseclose0.011 Detail
UserAgentStringCom
Opera 9.50closeWindows XP closecloseclosecloseclose0.083 Detail
WhatIsMyBrowserCom
Opera 9.50 Windows Windows NT 5.1HTCcloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0.423 Detail
WhichBrowser
2.0.10
Opera Mobile 9.50 Windows Mobile HTCTouch Diamond 2mobile:smartyescloseclose0.003 Detail
Woothee
v1.2.0
Opera 9.50closeclosecloseclosepcclosecloseclose0.001 Detail
Wurfl
1.6.4
close HTCTouch Diamond 2Feature Phoneyesyescloseclose0.026 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 13:35:15 | by ThaDafinser