User agent detail

LENOVO-E307_ENG_FRE/(2005.06.20)S267/WAP1.2.1 Profile//
GeneralDeviceBot
ProviderBrowserEngineOSBrandModelTypeIs mobileIs touchIs botNameTypeParse timeActions
Source result (test suite)
ua-parser/uap-core
vendor/thadafinser/uap-core/tests/test_device.yaml
LenovoE307_ENG_FRE Detail
Providers
BrowscapPhp
6012
No result found
DonatjUAParser
v0.5.0
LENOVO-E307 closeclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
NeutrinoApiCom
close LenovoE307 ENG FREmobile-browseryescloseclose0.201 Detail
PiwikDeviceDetector
3.5.2
LenovoE307 ENG FREsmartphoneyes0.005 Detail
SinergiBrowserDetector
6.0.0
No result found
UAParser
v3.4.5
close LenovoE307_ENG_FREcloseclosecloseclose0.004 Detail
UserAgentStringCom
No result found
WhatIsMyBrowserCom
No result found
WhichBrowser
2.0.10
LenovoE307 ENG FREmobile:featureyescloseclose0.011 Detail
Woothee
v1.2.0
No result found
Wurfl
1.6.4
close LenovoE307Feature Phoneyescloseclose0.026 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 13:40:09 | by ThaDafinser