User agent detail

HD_mini_T5555 Opera/9.7 (Windows NT 5.1; U; xx)
GeneralDeviceBot
ProviderBrowserEngineOSBrandModelTypeIs mobileIs touchIs botNameTypeParse timeActions
Source result (test suite)
whichbrowser/parser
/tests/data/mobile/os-windowsmobile.yaml
Opera Mobile 9.7Windows Mobile HTCHD minimobile:smartyes Detail
Providers
BrowscapPhp
6012
Opera Mobile 9.7Presto 2.2 HTCHD mini T5555Mobile Phoneyes0.012 Detail
DonatjUAParser
v0.5.0
Opera 9.7closeclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
NeutrinoApiCom
Opera Mobile 9.7closeWindows Mobile HTCHD minimobile-browseryescloseclose0.18606 Detail
PiwikDeviceDetector
3.5.2
Opera 9.7Presto Windows XPdesktop0.006 Detail
SinergiBrowserDetector
6.0.0
Opera 9.7closeWindows XPclosecloseclosecloseclose0.001 Detail
UAParser
v3.4.5
Opera 9.7closeWindows XP closeclosecloseclose0.003 Detail
UserAgentStringCom
Opera 9.7closeWindows XP closecloseclosecloseclose0.05902 Detail
WhatIsMyBrowserCom
Opera 9.7 Windows Windows NT 5.1closeclosecloseclosecloseclose0.41012 Detail
WhichBrowser
2.0.10
Opera Mobile 9.7 Windows Mobile HTCHD minimobile:smartyescloseclose0.004 Detail
Woothee
v1.2.0
Opera 9.7closeclosecloseclosepcclosecloseclose0 Detail
Wurfl
1.6.4
close HTCHD Mini T5555Feature Phoneyesyescloseclose0.018 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 13:37:29 | by ThaDafinser