User agent detail

HTC_Hermes Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows CE; IEMobile 6.12) PPC; 240x320; HTC_TyTN1.0 ProfileMIDP-2.0 ConfigurationCLDC-1.1
GeneralDeviceBot
ProviderBrowserEngineOSBrandModelTypeIs mobileIs touchIs botNameTypeParse timeActions
Source result (test suite)
ua-parser/uap-core
vendor/thadafinser/uap-core/tests/test_device.yaml
HTCHermes Detail
Providers
BrowscapPhp
6012
No result found
DonatjUAParser
v0.5.0
IEMobile 6.12closeclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
NeutrinoApiCom
IE Mobile 6.12closeWindows OrangeSPV M3100mobile-browseryescloseclose0.18202 Detail
PiwikDeviceDetector
3.5.2
IE Mobile 6.12Trident Windows CE HTCHermes Mozillasmartphoneyes0.004 Detail
SinergiBrowserDetector
6.0.0
Internet Explorer 6.0closeWindows CEclosecloseclosecloseclose0.001 Detail
UAParser
v3.4.5
IE Mobile 6.12closeWindows CE HTCHermescloseclosecloseclose0.001 Detail
UserAgentStringCom
IE Mobile 6.12closeWindows CE closecloseclosecloseclose0.08101 Detail
WhatIsMyBrowserCom
Internet Explorer Mobile Windows closeclosecloseclosecloseclose0.40304 Detail
WhichBrowser
2.0.10
Mobile Internet Explorer 6.0 Windows Mobile 6.0HTCTyTNmobile:smartyescloseclose0.004 Detail
Woothee
v1.2.0
Internet Explorer 6.0closeclosecloseclosesmartphoneclosecloseclose0.001 Detail
Wurfl
1.6.4
IE Mobile closeWindows Mobile OrangeSPV M3100Feature Phoneyescloseclose0.034 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 13:38:40 | by ThaDafinser