User agent detail

dopod HTC BlueAngel/5.2.21139/WAP1.2 Profile/MIDP2.0 Configuration/CLDC1.0 Mozilla/4.0 Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 4.01; Windows CE; PPC)/UC Browser7.8.0.95
GeneralDeviceBot
ProviderBrowserEngineOSBrandModelTypeIs mobileIs touchIs botNameTypeParse timeActions
Source result (test suite)
ua-parser/uap-core
vendor/thadafinser/uap-core/tests/test_device.yaml
HTCBlueAngel Detail
Providers
BrowscapPhp
6012
UC Browser 7.8WebKit Android Mobile Phoneyesyes0.013 Detail
DonatjUAParser
v0.5.0
MSIE 4.01closeclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0.001 Detail
NeutrinoApiCom
IE 4.01closeWindows desktop-browsercloseclose0.21198 Detail
PiwikDeviceDetector
3.5.2
UC Browser 7.8 Windows CE HTCBlueAngelsmartphoneyes0.005 Detail
SinergiBrowserDetector
6.0.0
Internet Explorer 4.01closeWindows CEclosecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
UAParser
v3.4.5
UC Browser 7.8.0closeWindows CE HTCBlueAngelcloseclosecloseclose0.002 Detail
UserAgentStringCom
Internet Explorer 4.01closeWindows CE closecloseclosecloseclose0.09699 Detail
WhatIsMyBrowserCom
UC Browser 7.8.0.95 Windows closeclosecloseclosecloseclose0.40096 Detail
WhichBrowser
2.0.10
UC Browser 7.8Gecko Windows CE HTCBlueAngelmobile:featureyescloseclose0.015 Detail
Woothee
v1.2.0
Internet Explorer 4.01closeclosecloseclosesmartphoneclosecloseclose0 Detail
Wurfl
1.6.4
IE Mobile closeWindows Mobile Feature Phoneyescloseclose0.013 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 13:38:54 | by ThaDafinser