User agent detail

UTSTARCOM-GTX75/UC1.88 POLARIS/6.00 Profile/MIDP-2.0 Configuration/CLDC-1.1 UNTRUSTED/1.0
GeneralDeviceBot
ProviderBrowserEngineOSBrandModelTypeIs mobileIs touchIs botNameTypeParse timeActions
Source result (test suite)
browscap/browscap
/tests/fixtures/issues/issue-317.php
Polaris 6.0unknown unknownunknown AT&TQuickfireMobile Phoneyes Detail
Providers
BrowscapPhp
6012
Polaris 6.0 AT&TQuickfireMobile Phoneyes0.009 Detail
DonatjUAParser
v0.5.0
UTSTARCOM-GTX75 UC1.88closeclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0.001 Detail
NeutrinoApiCom
Polaris 6.00closeJVM GenericJ2ME Midletmobile-browseryescloseclose0.20102 Detail
PiwikDeviceDetector
3.5.2
Polaris 6.00 AudiovoxCDM-GTX75smartphoneyes0.004 Detail
SinergiBrowserDetector
6.0.0
No result found
UAParser
v3.4.5
Polaris 6.0close closeclosecloseclose0.012 Detail
UserAgentStringCom
Polaris 6.00close closecloseclosecloseclose0.09301 Detail
WhatIsMyBrowserCom
No result found
WhichBrowser
2.0.10
Polaris 6.00 mobile:featureyescloseclose0.021 Detail
Woothee
v1.2.0
No result found
Wurfl
1.6.4
Java Applet close J2ME MidletFeature Phoneyescloseclose0.009 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 13:37:55 | by ThaDafinser