User agent detail

Mozilla/5.0 (compatible; OSS/1.0; Chameleon; Linux) MOT-AURA/R6639_G_81.20.75R BER/2.0 Profile/MIDP-2.0 Configuration/CLDC-1.1 Symphony 1.0
GeneralDeviceBot
ProviderBrowserEngineOSBrandModelTypeIs mobileIs touchIs botNameTypeParse timeActions
Source result (test suite)
ua-parser/uap-core
vendor/thadafinser/uap-core/tests/test_device.yaml
MotorolaAURA Detail
Providers
BrowscapPhp
6012
No result found
DonatjUAParser
v0.5.0
No result found
NeutrinoApiCom
closeLinux MotorolaAURAmobile-browseryescloseclose0.19106 Detail
PiwikDeviceDetector
3.5.2
GNU/Linux MotorolaAURAsmartphoneyes0.005 Detail
SinergiBrowserDetector
6.0.0
Mozilla 5.0closeLinux closecloseclosecloseclose0.001 Detail
UAParser
v3.4.5
Symphony 1.0closeLinux MotorolaAURAcloseclosecloseclose0.008 Detail
UserAgentStringCom
No result found
WhatIsMyBrowserCom
5.0 Linux closeclosecloseclosecloseclose0.50415 Detail
WhichBrowser
2.0.10
Linux MotorolaAURAmobile:featureyescloseclose0.01 Detail
Woothee
v1.2.0
closeclosecloseclosepcclosecloseclose0.001 Detail
Wurfl
1.6.4
Java Applet closeLinux MotorolaAURAFeature Phoneyescloseclose0.047 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 13:37:25 | by ThaDafinser