User agent detail

MOT-MOTOQA1/A2.01.11R Release/09.24.2008 OPERA/BER2.2 Profile/MIDP-2.0 Configuration/CLDC-1.1
GeneralDeviceBot
ProviderBrowserEngineOSBrandModelTypeIs mobileIs touchIs botNameTypeParse timeActions
Source result (test suite)
whichbrowser/parser
/tests/data/mobile/os-feature.yaml
Opera Mini MotorolaKarma QA1mobile:featureyes Detail
Providers
BrowscapPhp
6012
No result found
DonatjUAParser
v0.5.0
Opera BER2.2closeclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
NeutrinoApiCom
Opera Mini close MotorolaKarma QA1mobile-browseryescloseclose0.19702 Detail
PiwikDeviceDetector
3.5.2
MotorolaMOTOQA1smartphoneyes0.006 Detail
SinergiBrowserDetector
6.0.0
Opera BER2.2close closecloseclosecloseclose0.001 Detail
UAParser
v3.4.5
close MotorolaMOTOQA1closeclosecloseclose0.001 Detail
UserAgentStringCom
Opera close closecloseclosecloseclose0.048 Detail
WhatIsMyBrowserCom
Opera closeclosecloseclosecloseclose0.41604 Detail
WhichBrowser
2.0.10
Opera Mini MotorolaKarma QA1mobile:featureyescloseclose0.005 Detail
Woothee
v1.2.0
No result found
Wurfl
1.6.4
Java Applet close MotorolaQA1Feature 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 13:39:47 | by ThaDafinser