User agent detail

HPiPAQGlisten/1.00_1.00 Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 4.01; Windows CE; PPC)/UC Browser7.7.1.88
GeneralDeviceBot
ProviderBrowserEngineOSBrandModelTypeIs mobileIs touchIs botNameTypeParse timeActions
Source result (test suite)
ua-parser/uap-core
vendor/thadafinser/uap-core/tests/test_device.yaml
HPiPAQ Glisten Detail
Providers
BrowscapPhp
6012
UC Browser 7.7WebKit Android Mobile Phoneyesyes0.043 Detail
DonatjUAParser
v0.5.0
MSIE 4.01closeclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
NeutrinoApiCom
IE 4.01closeWindows desktop-browsercloseclose0.19602 Detail
PiwikDeviceDetector
3.5.2
UC Browser 7.7 Windows CE HPiPAQ Glistensmartphoneyes0.004 Detail
SinergiBrowserDetector
6.0.0
Internet Explorer 4.01closeWindows CEclosecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
UAParser
v3.4.5
UC Browser 7.7.1closeWindows CE HPiPAQ Glistencloseclosecloseclose0.003 Detail
UserAgentStringCom
Internet Explorer 4.01closeWindows CE closecloseclosecloseclose0.051 Detail
WhatIsMyBrowserCom
UC Browser 7.7.1.88 Windows closeclosecloseclosecloseclose0.41304 Detail
WhichBrowser
2.0.10
UC Browser 7.7Gecko Windows CE mobile:featureyescloseclose0.022 Detail
Woothee
v1.2.0
Internet Explorer 4.01closeclosecloseclosesmartphoneclosecloseclose0.001 Detail
Wurfl
1.6.4
IE Mobile closeWindows Mobile HPKB1Feature Phoneyescloseclose0.044 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 13:37:39 | by ThaDafinser