User agent detail

Opera/9.5 (Microsoft Windows; PPC; 640x480; HTC_X7510/1.0 Profile/MIDP-2.0 Configuration/CLDC-1.1; Opera Mobi/1114; U; ru)
GeneralDeviceBot
ProviderBrowserEngineOSBrandModelTypeIs mobileIs touchIs botNameTypeParse timeActions
Source result (test suite)
ua-parser/uap-core
vendor/thadafinser/uap-core/tests/test_device.yaml
HTCX7510 Detail
Providers
BrowscapPhp
6012
Opera Mobile Presto 2.2WinMobile Mobile Deviceyes0.015 Detail
DonatjUAParser
v0.5.0
Opera 9.5closeclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0.001 Detail
NeutrinoApiCom
Opera Mobile closeWindows HTCX7500mobile-browseryescloseclose0.19202 Detail
PiwikDeviceDetector
3.5.2
Opera 9.5Presto Windows HTCX7510smartphoneyes0.004 Detail
SinergiBrowserDetector
6.0.0
Opera 9.5closeChrome OS closecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
UAParser
v3.4.5
Opera Mobile 9.5closeWindows HTCX7510closeclosecloseclose0.001 Detail
UserAgentStringCom
Opera Mobile close closecloseclosecloseclose0.05001 Detail
WhatIsMyBrowserCom
Opera 9.5 Windows closeclosecloseclosecloseclose0.40704 Detail
WhichBrowser
2.0.10
Opera Mobile 9.5 Windows Mobile HTCAdvantagemobile:smartyescloseclose0.004 Detail
Woothee
v1.2.0
Opera 9.5closeclosecloseclosepcclosecloseclose0.001 Detail
Wurfl
1.6.4
Opera 11.10closeLinux armv6l Feature 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 13:40:28 | by ThaDafinser