User agent detail

Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 4.01; Windows CE; i-mate JASJAM PPC; 240x320)/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
i-mateJASJAM Detail
Providers
BrowscapPhp
6012
IEMobile 4.01Trident 3.1WinCE Mobile Phoneyes0.016 Detail
DonatjUAParser
v0.5.0
MSIE 4.01closeclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
NeutrinoApiCom
IE 4.01closeWindows desktop-browsercloseclose0.26503 Detail
PiwikDeviceDetector
3.5.2
UC Browser 7.8 Windows CE i-mateJASJAMfeature phoneyes0.004 Detail
SinergiBrowserDetector
6.0.0
Internet Explorer 4.01closeWindows CEclosecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
UAParser
v3.4.5
UC Browser 7.8.0closeWindows CE i-mateJASJAMcloseclosecloseclose0.004 Detail
UserAgentStringCom
Internet Explorer 4.01closeWindows CE closecloseclosecloseclose0.06801 Detail
WhatIsMyBrowserCom
UC Browser 7.8.0.95 Windows closeclosecloseclosecloseclose0.42004 Detail
WhichBrowser
2.0.10
UC Browser 7.8Gecko Windows CE mobile:featureyescloseclose0.008 Detail
Woothee
v1.2.0
Internet Explorer 4.01closeclosecloseclosesmartphoneclosecloseclose0.001 Detail
Wurfl
1.6.4
IE Mobile closeWindows Mobile Feature Phoneyescloseclose0.03 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 13:40:03 | by ThaDafinser