User agent detail

Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows CE; HTC-P5310 BM ) Opera 8.65 [en]
GeneralDeviceBot
ProviderBrowserEngineOSBrandModelTypeIs mobileIs touchIs botNameTypeParse timeActions
Source result (test suite)
ua-parser/uap-core
vendor/thadafinser/uap-core/tests/test_device.yaml
HTCP5310 BM Detail
Providers
BrowscapPhp
6012
IE 6.0Trident WinCE Mobile Phoneyes0.016 Detail
DonatjUAParser
v0.5.0
Opera 8.65closeclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0.001 Detail
NeutrinoApiCom
Opera 8.65closeWindows desktop-browsercloseclose0.19 Detail
PiwikDeviceDetector
3.5.2
Opera 8.65Presto Windows CE HTCP5310smartphoneyes0.003 Detail
SinergiBrowserDetector
6.0.0
Opera 8.65closeWindows CEclosecloseclosecloseclose0.001 Detail
UAParser
v3.4.5
Opera 8.65closeWindows CE HTCP5310 BMcloseclosecloseclose0.002 Detail
UserAgentStringCom
Opera 8.65closeWindows CE closecloseclosecloseclose0.083 Detail
WhatIsMyBrowserCom
Opera 8.65 Windows HTC P5310closeclosecloseclosecloseclose0.42 Detail
WhichBrowser
2.0.10
Opera Mobile 8.65 Windows CE HTCP5310 BMmobile:featureyescloseclose0.023 Detail
Woothee
v1.2.0
Internet Explorer 6.0closeclosecloseclosesmartphoneclosecloseclose0 Detail
Wurfl
1.6.4
IE Mobile closeWindows Mobile HTCP5310BMFeature Phoneyescloseclose0.025 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 13:36:32 | by ThaDafinser