User agent detail

MOT-MOTOV9/A0.05.20R_03 BER2.2 Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; 13003348) Profile/MIDP-2.0 Configuration/CLDC-1.1 Opera 8.60 [de]
GeneralDeviceBot
ProviderBrowserEngineOSBrandModelTypeIs mobileIs touchIs botNameTypeParse timeActions
Source result (test suite)
ua-parser/uap-core
vendor/thadafinser/uap-core/tests/test_device.yaml
MotorolaMOTOV9 Detail
Providers
BrowscapPhp
6012
No result found
DonatjUAParser
v0.5.0
Opera 8.60closeclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
NeutrinoApiCom
Opera 8.60close desktop-browsercloseclose0.20102 Detail
PiwikDeviceDetector
3.5.2
Opera 8.60Presto MotorolaMOTOV9smartphoneyes0.005 Detail
SinergiBrowserDetector
6.0.0
Opera 8.60close closecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
UAParser
v3.4.5
Opera 8.60close MotorolaMOTOV9closeclosecloseclose0.002 Detail
UserAgentStringCom
Opera 8.60close closecloseclosecloseclose0.05401 Detail
WhatIsMyBrowserCom
Opera 8.60 closeclosecloseclosecloseclose0.40604 Detail
WhichBrowser
2.0.10
Opera Mini MotorolaMOTOV9mobile:featureyescloseclose0.013 Detail
Woothee
v1.2.0
Internet Explorer 6.0closecloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0.001 Detail
Wurfl
1.6.4
Teleca Obigo Q05Aclose Feature Phoneyescloseclose0.014 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 13:38:22 | by ThaDafinser