User agent detail

DoCoMo/2.0 F09C(c500;TB;W24H16)
GeneralDeviceBot
ProviderBrowserEngineOSBrandModelTypeIs mobileIs touchIs botNameTypeParse timeActions
Source result (test suite)
whichbrowser/parser
/tests/data/mobile/carrier-docomo.yaml
FujitsuF09Cmobile:featureyes Detail
Providers
BrowscapPhp
6012
i-mode Browser 2.0 JAVA Mobile Deviceyes0.011 Detail
DonatjUAParser
v0.5.0
DoCoMo 2.0closeclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
NeutrinoApiCom
NetFront close DoCoMoF-09Cmobile-browseryescloseclose0.23507 Detail
PiwikDeviceDetector
3.5.2
DoCoMoF09Cfeature phoneyes0.005 Detail
SinergiBrowserDetector
6.0.0
No result found
UAParser
v3.4.5
close DoCoMoF09Ccloseclosecloseclose0.008 Detail
UserAgentStringCom
No result found
WhatIsMyBrowserCom
F09Ccloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0.40412 Detail
WhichBrowser
2.0.10
FujitsuF09Cmobile:featureyescloseclose0.004 Detail
Woothee
v1.2.0
docomo F09Ccloseclosecloseclosemobilephoneclosecloseclose0.001 Detail
Wurfl
1.6.4
close DoCoMoF-09CFeature Phoneyesyescloseclose0.021 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 13:37:32 | by ThaDafinser