User agent detail

DoCoMo/1.0/D505i/c20/TB/W20H10
GeneralDeviceBot
ProviderBrowserEngineOSBrandModelTypeIs mobileIs touchIs botNameTypeParse timeActions
Source result (test suite)
whichbrowser/parser
/tests/data/mobile/carrier-docomo.yaml
MitsubishiD505imobile:featureyes Detail
Providers
BrowscapPhp
6012
DoCoMo 1.0 JAVA Mobile Deviceyes0.007 Detail
DonatjUAParser
v0.5.0
DoCoMo 1.0closeclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
NeutrinoApiCom
NetFront close DoCoMoD505imobile-browseryescloseclose0.17902 Detail
PiwikDeviceDetector
3.5.2
DoCoMoD505ifeature phoneyes0.005 Detail
SinergiBrowserDetector
6.0.0
No result found
UAParser
v3.4.5
close closeclosecloseclose0.004 Detail
UserAgentStringCom
No result found
WhatIsMyBrowserCom
D505icloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0.41104 Detail
WhichBrowser
2.0.10
MitsubishiD505imobile:featureyescloseclose0.003 Detail
Woothee
v1.2.0
docomo D505icloseclosecloseclosemobilephoneclosecloseclose0 Detail
Wurfl
1.6.4
close DoCoMoD505iFeature 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 13:38:37 | by ThaDafinser