User agent detail

Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Symbian OS; Motorola A1000;698) Opera 7.50 en ./MOT-A925./P243
GeneralDeviceBot
ProviderBrowserEngineOSBrandModelTypeIs mobileIs touchIs botNameTypeParse timeActions
Source result (test suite)
ua-parser/uap-core
vendor/thadafinser/uap-core/tests/test_device.yaml
MotorolaA925 Detail
Providers
BrowscapPhp
6012
IE 6.0Trident Windows DesktopDesktop0.04 Detail
DonatjUAParser
v0.5.0
Opera 7.50closeclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
NeutrinoApiCom
Opera 7.50closeSymbian OS desktop-browsercloseclose0.21002 Detail
PiwikDeviceDetector
3.5.2
Opera 7.50Presto Symbian OS MotorolaA1000smartphoneyes0.007 Detail
SinergiBrowserDetector
6.0.0
Opera MOT-A925.close closecloseclosecloseclose0.001 Detail
UAParser
v3.4.5
Opera 7.50closeSymbian OS MotorolaA925closeclosecloseclose0.004 Detail
UserAgentStringCom
Opera 7.50closeSymbian OS closecloseclosecloseclose0.053 Detail
WhatIsMyBrowserCom
Opera 7.50 Symbian closeclosecloseclosecloseclose0.51005 Detail
WhichBrowser
2.0.10
Opera Mobile 7.50 UIQ MotorolaA1000mobile:featureyescloseclose0.003 Detail
Woothee
v1.2.0
Internet Explorer 6.0closecloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
Wurfl
1.6.4
close MotorolaA1000Feature Phoneyesyescloseclose0.02 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 13:38:36 | by ThaDafinser