User agent detail

DoCoMo/2.0 N902iS(c100;TB;W24H12)(compatible; moba-crawler; http://crawler.dena.jp/)
GeneralDeviceBot
ProviderBrowserEngineOSBrandModelTypeIs mobileIs touchIs botNameTypeParse timeActions
Source result (test suite)
ua-parser/uap-core
vendor/thadafinser/uap-core/tests/test_ua.yaml
moba-crawler Detail
Providers
BrowscapPhp
6012
i-mode Browser 2.0 JAVA Mobile Deviceyes0.006 Detail
DonatjUAParser
v0.5.0
DoCoMo 2.0closeclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
NeutrinoApiCom
close closeyesmoba-crawlerclose3.27033 Detail
PiwikDeviceDetector
3.5.2
yes0.003 Detail
SinergiBrowserDetector
6.0.0
close closeclosecloseyescloseclose0.001 Detail
UAParser
v3.4.5
moba-crawler close DoCoMoN902iScloseclosecloseclose0.003 Detail
UserAgentStringCom
No result found
WhatIsMyBrowserCom
N902iScloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0.57406 Detail
WhichBrowser
2.0.10
closeyesclose0.002 Detail
Woothee
v1.2.0
docomo N902iScloseclosecloseclosemobilephoneclosecloseclose0 Detail
Wurfl
1.6.4
close yescloseclose0.013 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 13:40:29 | by ThaDafinser