User agent detail

Lenovo_ET860/Lenovo WindowsMobile/6 Release/4.22.2007 (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
LenovoET860 Detail
Providers
BrowscapPhp
6012
UC Browser 7.7WebKit Android Mobile Phoneyesyes0.044 Detail
DonatjUAParser
v0.5.0
MSIE 4.01closeclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
NeutrinoApiCom
IE Mobile 4.01closeWindows LenovoET860mobile-browseryescloseclose0.19104 Detail
PiwikDeviceDetector
3.5.2
UC Browser 7.7 Windows CE LenovoET860smartphoneyes0.007 Detail
SinergiBrowserDetector
6.0.0
Internet Explorer 4.01closeWindows CEclosecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
UAParser
v3.4.5
UC Browser 7.7.1closeWindows Mobile LenovoET860closeclosecloseclose0.001 Detail
UserAgentStringCom
Internet Explorer 4.01closeWindows CE closecloseclosecloseclose0.24205 Detail
WhatIsMyBrowserCom
UC Browser 7.7.1.88 Windows closeclosecloseclosecloseclose0.46009 Detail
WhichBrowser
2.0.10
UC Browser 7.7Gecko Windows Mobile 6LenovoET860mobile:smartyescloseclose0.005 Detail
Woothee
v1.2.0
Internet Explorer 4.01closeclosecloseclosesmartphoneclosecloseclose0 Detail
Wurfl
1.6.4
IE Mobile closeWindows Mobile LenovoET860Feature Phoneyesyescloseclose0.029 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 13:38:08 | by ThaDafinser