User agent detail

Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows CE; IEMobile 7.7) 320x240; VZW; Motorola-Q9m; Windows Mobile 6.0 Standard
GeneralDeviceBot
ProviderBrowserEngineOSBrandModelTypeIs mobileIs touchIs botNameTypeParse timeActions
Source result (test suite)
ua-parser/uap-core
vendor/thadafinser/uap-core/tests/test_device.yaml
MotorolaQ9m Detail
Providers
BrowscapPhp
6012
IEMobile 7.0Trident 3.1WinCE Mobile Phoneyes0.021 Detail
DonatjUAParser
v0.5.0
IEMobile 7.7closeclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
NeutrinoApiCom
IE Mobile 7.7closeWindows MotorolaQ9mmobile-browseryescloseclose0.18302 Detail
PiwikDeviceDetector
3.5.2
IE Mobile 7.7Trident Windows CE MotorolaQ9msmartphoneyes0.005 Detail
SinergiBrowserDetector
6.0.0
Internet Explorer 6.0closeWindows CEclosecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
UAParser
v3.4.5
IE Mobile 7.7closeWindows Mobile MotorolaQ9mcloseclosecloseclose0.009 Detail
UserAgentStringCom
IE Mobile 7.7closeWindows CE closecloseclosecloseclose0.05701 Detail
WhatIsMyBrowserCom
Internet Explorer Mobile Windows closeclosecloseclosecloseclose0.41504 Detail
WhichBrowser
2.0.10
Mobile Internet Explorer 6.0 Windows Mobile 6.0MotorolaMOTO Q9mmobile:smartyescloseclose0.006 Detail
Woothee
v1.2.0
Internet Explorer 6.0closeclosecloseclosesmartphoneclosecloseclose0 Detail
Wurfl
1.6.4
IE Mobile closeWindows Mobile MotorolaQ9mFeature Phoneyescloseclose0.024 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 13:40:38 | by ThaDafinser