User agent detail

Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 4.01; Windows CE; PPC; 240x240; HPiPAQhw6900/1.0)
GeneralDeviceBot
ProviderBrowserEngineOSBrandModelTypeIs mobileIs touchIs botNameTypeParse timeActions
Source result (test suite)
ua-parser/uap-core
vendor/thadafinser/uap-core/tests/test_device.yaml
HPiPAQ hw6900 Detail
Providers
BrowscapPhp
6012
IEMobile 4.01Trident 3.1WinCE Mobile Phoneyes0.017 Detail
DonatjUAParser
v0.5.0
MSIE 4.01closeclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
NeutrinoApiCom
IE 4.01closeWindows desktop-browsercloseclose0.24102 Detail
PiwikDeviceDetector
3.5.2
Internet Explorer 4.01Trident Windows CE HPiPAQ hw6900smartphoneyes0.008 Detail
SinergiBrowserDetector
6.0.0
Internet Explorer 4.01closeWindows CEclosecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
UAParser
v3.4.5
IE 4.1closeWindows CE HPiPAQ hw6900closeclosecloseclose0.002 Detail
UserAgentStringCom
Internet Explorer 4.01closeWindows CE closecloseclosecloseclose0.06401 Detail
WhatIsMyBrowserCom
Internet Explorer 4.1Trident Windows closeclosecloseclosecloseclose0.41504 Detail
WhichBrowser
2.0.10
Mobile Internet Explorer 4.0.1 Windows Mobile HPiPAQ hw6900mobile:smartyescloseclose0.005 Detail
Woothee
v1.2.0
Internet Explorer 4.01closeclosecloseclosesmartphoneclosecloseclose0 Detail
Wurfl
1.6.4
IE Mobile closeWindows Mobile HPiPAQ 6900Feature Phoneyescloseclose0.029 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 13:40:16 | by ThaDafinser