User agent detail

PantechP9020/JEUS04262010; Mozilla/5.0 (Profile/MIDP-2.0 Configuration/CLDC-1.1; Opera Mini/att/4.2.18216; U; en-US) Opera 9.50
GeneralDeviceBot
ProviderBrowserEngineOSBrandModelTypeIs mobileIs touchIs botNameTypeParse timeActions
Source result (test suite)
browscap/browscap
/tests/fixtures/issues/issue-317.php
Opera Mini 4.2JAVA unknown2.2 PantechPursuit P9020Mobile Phoneyes Detail
Providers
BrowscapPhp
6012
Opera Mini 4.2Presto 2.2JAVA PantechPursuit P9020Mobile Phoneyes0.029 Detail
DonatjUAParser
v0.5.0
Opera Minicloseclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0.001 Detail
NeutrinoApiCom
Opera 9.50close desktop-browsercloseclose0.19402 Detail
PiwikDeviceDetector
3.5.2
Opera Mini 4.2Presto PantechP9020smartphoneyes0.011 Detail
SinergiBrowserDetector
6.0.0
Opera Mini attclose closecloseyesclosecloseclose0 Detail
UAParser
v3.4.5
Opera Mini 4.2.18216close PantechP9020closeclosecloseclose0.002 Detail
UserAgentStringCom
Opera Mini close closecloseclosecloseclose0.06701 Detail
WhatIsMyBrowserCom
Opera Mini closeclosecloseclosecloseclose0.50305 Detail
WhichBrowser
2.0.10
Opera Mini 4.2 PantechPursuitmobile:featureyescloseclose0.006 Detail
Woothee
v1.2.0
Opera 9.50closecloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
Wurfl
1.6.4
Java Applet close PantechP9020Feature Phoneyescloseclose0.015 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 13:36:22 | by ThaDafinser