User agent detail

MOT-Z6/R60_G_80.xx.yyI Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0 Linux; MOTOROKR Z6;nnn) Profile/MIDP-2.0 Configuration/CLDC-1.1 Opera 8.50[yy]
GeneralDeviceBot
ProviderBrowserEngineOSBrandModelTypeIs mobileIs touchIs botNameTypeParse timeActions
Source result (test suite)
ua-parser/uap-core
vendor/thadafinser/uap-core/tests/test_device.yaml
MotorolaZ6 Detail
Providers
BrowscapPhp
6012
No result found
DonatjUAParser
v0.5.0
Opera 8.50closeclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
NeutrinoApiCom
Opera 8.50closeLinux desktop-browsercloseclose0.19302 Detail
PiwikDeviceDetector
3.5.2
Opera 8.50Presto GNU/Linux MotorolaZ6smartphoneyes0.01 Detail
SinergiBrowserDetector
6.0.0
Opera 8.50[yy]closeLinux closecloseclosecloseclose0.001 Detail
UAParser
v3.4.5
Opera 8.50closeLinux MotorolaZ6closeclosecloseclose0.008 Detail
UserAgentStringCom
Opera 8.50closeLinux closecloseclosecloseclose0.04901 Detail
WhatIsMyBrowserCom
Opera 8.50 Linux closeclosecloseclosecloseclose0.41004 Detail
WhichBrowser
2.0.10
Opera Mobile 8.50 Linux MotorolaZ6mobile:featureyescloseclose0.015 Detail
Woothee
v1.2.0
Internet Explorer closeclosecloseclosepcclosecloseclose0 Detail
Wurfl
1.6.4
Java Applet closeLinux MotorolaMOTOROKR Z6MFeature Phoneyescloseclose0.032 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 13:39:34 | by ThaDafinser