User agent detail

Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows CE; IEMobile 7.11) /Kyocera-E4000
GeneralDeviceBot
ProviderBrowserEngineOSBrandModelTypeIs mobileIs touchIs botNameTypeParse timeActions
Source result (test suite)
ua-parser/uap-core
vendor/thadafinser/uap-core/tests/test_device.yaml
KyoceraE4000 Detail
Providers
BrowscapPhp
6012
IEMobile 7.11Trident 3.1WinCE Mobile Phoneyes0.023 Detail
DonatjUAParser
v0.5.0
IEMobile 7.11closeclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
NeutrinoApiCom
IE Mobile 7.11closeWindows KyoceraE4000mobile-browseryescloseclose0.21202 Detail
PiwikDeviceDetector
3.5.2
IE Mobile 7.11Trident Windows CE KyoceraE4000smartphoneyes0.004 Detail
SinergiBrowserDetector
6.0.0
Internet Explorer 6.0closeWindows CEclosecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
UAParser
v3.4.5
IE Mobile 7.11closeWindows CE KyoceraE4000closeclosecloseclose0.002 Detail
UserAgentStringCom
IE Mobile 7.11closeWindows CE closecloseclosecloseclose0.06001 Detail
WhatIsMyBrowserCom
Internet Explorer Mobile Windows closeclosecloseclosecloseclose0.40604 Detail
WhichBrowser
2.0.10
Mobile Internet Explorer 6.0 Windows Mobile 6.1/Kyocera-E4000mobile:smartyescloseclose0.014 Detail
Woothee
v1.2.0
Internet Explorer 6.0closeclosecloseclosesmartphoneclosecloseclose0.001 Detail
Wurfl
1.6.4
IE Mobile closeWindows Mobile KyoceraE4000Feature Phoneyescloseclose0.055 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 13:36:23 | by ThaDafinser