User agent detail

emobile/1.0.0 (H11T; Profile/MIDP-2.0 Configuration/CLDC-1.1 Local/ja UNTRUSTED/1.0)
GeneralDeviceBot
ProviderBrowserEngineOSBrandModelTypeIs mobileIs touchIs botNameTypeParse timeActions
Source result (test suite)
whichbrowser/parser
/tests/data/mobile/carrier-emobile.yaml
ToshibaH11Tmobile:featureyes Detail
Providers
BrowscapPhp
6012
No result found
DonatjUAParser
v0.5.0
emobile 1.0.0closeclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
NeutrinoApiCom
close ToshibaH11Tmobile-browseryescloseclose0.19002 Detail
PiwikDeviceDetector
3.5.2
No result found
SinergiBrowserDetector
6.0.0
No result found
UAParser
v3.4.5
close closeclosecloseclose0.011 Detail
UserAgentStringCom
No result found
WhatIsMyBrowserCom
No result found
WhichBrowser
2.0.10
ToshibaH11Tmobile:featureyescloseclose0.003 Detail
Woothee
v1.2.0
emobile closeclosecloseclosemobilephoneclosecloseclose0 Detail
Wurfl
1.6.4
Java Applet close J2ME MidletFeature Phoneyescloseclose0.017 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 13:37:53 | by ThaDafinser