User agent detail

MOT-E680i/E680I_G_0D.C0.A1R Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Linux; Motorola E680i; 935) Profile/MIDP-2.0 Configuration/CLDC-1.1 Opera 7.50 [en]
GeneralDeviceBot
ProviderBrowserEngineOSBrandModelTypeIs mobileIs touchIs botNameTypeParse timeActions
Source result (test suite)
ua-parser/uap-core
vendor/thadafinser/uap-core/tests/test_device.yaml
MotorolaE680i Detail
Providers
BrowscapPhp
6012
Opera Mobile 7.50Presto 2.2WinMobile Mobile Phoneyes0.015 Detail
DonatjUAParser
v0.5.0
Opera 7.50closeclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0.001 Detail
NeutrinoApiCom
Opera 7.50closeLinux desktop-browsercloseclose1.0191 Detail
PiwikDeviceDetector
3.5.2
Opera 7.50Presto GNU/Linux MotorolaE680ismartphoneyes0.005 Detail
SinergiBrowserDetector
6.0.0
Opera 7.50closeLinux closecloseclosecloseclose0.002 Detail
UAParser
v3.4.5
Opera 7.50closeLinux MotorolaE680icloseclosecloseclose0.003 Detail
UserAgentStringCom
Opera 7.50closeLinux closecloseclosecloseclose0.04901 Detail
WhatIsMyBrowserCom
Opera 7.50 Linux closeclosecloseclosecloseclose0.40404 Detail
WhichBrowser
2.0.10
Opera Mobile 7.50 Linux MotorolaE680imobile:featureyescloseclose0.012 Detail
Woothee
v1.2.0
Internet Explorer 6.0closeclosecloseclosepcclosecloseclose0 Detail
Wurfl
1.6.4
Java Applet closeLinux MotorolaE680iFeature Phoneyescloseclose0.038 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 13:38:18 | by ThaDafinser