User agent detail

Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Linux; Motorola MOTOROKR Z6; 2900) MOT-MOTOROKR Z6/R60_G_80.32.0FR Profile/MIDP-2.0 Configuration/CLDC-1.1 Opera 8.
GeneralDeviceBot
ProviderBrowserEngineOSBrandModelTypeIs mobileIs touchIs botNameTypeParse timeActions
Source result (test suite)
ua-parser/uap-core
vendor/thadafinser/uap-core/tests/test_device.yaml
MotorolaMOTOROKR Detail
Providers
BrowscapPhp
6012
IE 6.0Trident Windows DesktopDesktop0.026 Detail
DonatjUAParser
v0.5.0
Opera 8.closeclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0.001 Detail
NeutrinoApiCom
Opera 8.closeLinux desktop-browsercloseclose0.20402 Detail
PiwikDeviceDetector
3.5.2
Opera 8Presto GNU/Linux MotorolaMOTOROKRsmartphoneyes0.008 Detail
SinergiBrowserDetector
6.0.0
Opera 8.closeLinux closecloseclosecloseclose0.001 Detail
UAParser
v3.4.5
IE 6.0closeLinux MotorolaMOTOROKRcloseclosecloseclose0.006 Detail
UserAgentStringCom
Opera 8closeLinux closecloseclosecloseclose0.05101 Detail
WhatIsMyBrowserCom
Opera 8 Linux closeclosecloseclosecloseclose0.43904 Detail
WhichBrowser
2.0.10
Opera Mobile 8 Linux MotorolaMOTOROKR Z6mobile:featureyescloseclose0.015 Detail
Woothee
v1.2.0
Internet Explorer 6.0closeclosecloseclosepcclosecloseclose0 Detail
Wurfl
1.6.4
Java Applet closeLinux MotorolaMOTOROKR Z6Feature Phoneyescloseclose0.031 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 13:38:32 | by ThaDafinser