User agent detail

MOT-A1200i/R532C2_24XPS_1.1P Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Linux; Motorola A1200i;nnn) Profile/MIDP-2.0 Configuration/CLDC-1.1 Opera 8.00 [en]
GeneralDeviceBot
ProviderBrowserEngineOSBrandModelTypeIs mobileIs touchIs botNameTypeParse timeActions
Source result (test suite)
ua-parser/uap-core
vendor/thadafinser/uap-core/tests/test_device.yaml
MotorolaA1200i Detail
Providers
BrowscapPhp
6012
yesFake IEBot/Crawler0.073 Detail
DonatjUAParser
v0.5.0
Opera 8.00closeclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0.001 Detail
NeutrinoApiCom
Opera 8.00closeLinux desktop-browsercloseclose0.25203 Detail
PiwikDeviceDetector
3.5.2
Opera 8.00Presto GNU/Linux MotorolaA1200ismartphoneyes0.004 Detail
SinergiBrowserDetector
6.0.0
Opera 8.00closeLinux closecloseclosecloseclose0.001 Detail
UAParser
v3.4.5
Opera 8.0closeLinux MotorolaA1200icloseclosecloseclose0.008 Detail
UserAgentStringCom
Opera 8.00closeLinux closecloseclosecloseclose0.05701 Detail
WhatIsMyBrowserCom
Opera 8.0 Linux closeclosecloseclosecloseclose0.41004 Detail
WhichBrowser
2.0.10
Opera Mobile 8.00 Linux MotorolaA1200imobile:featureyescloseclose0.011 Detail
Woothee
v1.2.0
Internet Explorer 6.0closeclosecloseclosepcclosecloseclose0 Detail
Wurfl
1.6.4
Java Applet closeLinux MotorolaA1200iFeature Phoneyesyescloseclose0.041 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 13:36:07 | by ThaDafinser