User agent detail

Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; KYOCERA/WX320K/2;1.0.7.14.000000/0.1) Opera 7.0 [ja]
GeneralDeviceBot
ProviderBrowserEngineOSBrandModelTypeIs mobileIs touchIs botNameTypeParse timeActions
Source result (test suite)
whichbrowser/parser
/tests/data/mobile/carrier-willcom.yaml
Opera Mobile 7.0 KyoceraWX320Kmobile:featureyes Detail
Providers
BrowscapPhp
6012
IE 6.0Trident Windows DesktopDesktop0.026 Detail
DonatjUAParser
v0.5.0
Opera 7.0closeclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0.001 Detail
NeutrinoApiCom
Opera 7.0close desktop-browsercloseclose0.17702 Detail
PiwikDeviceDetector
3.5.2
Opera 7.0Presto KyoceraWX320Ksmartphoneyes0.01 Detail
SinergiBrowserDetector
6.0.0
Opera 7.0close closecloseclosecloseclose0.001 Detail
UAParser
v3.4.5
Opera 7.0close closeclosecloseclose0.003 Detail
UserAgentStringCom
Opera 7.0close closecloseclosecloseclose0.07501 Detail
WhatIsMyBrowserCom
Opera 7.0 closeclosecloseclosecloseclose0.40604 Detail
WhichBrowser
2.0.10
Opera Mobile 7.0 KyoceraWX320Kmobile:featureyescloseclose0.003 Detail
Woothee
v1.2.0
Internet Explorer 6.0closecloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
Wurfl
1.6.4
Opera 7.54closeWindows XPDesktopcloseclose0.011 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 13:38:23 | by ThaDafinser