User agent detail

HTC_P3650 Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows CE; IEMobile 7.6)
GeneralDeviceBot
ProviderBrowserEngineOSBrandModelTypeIs mobileIs touchIs botNameTypeParse timeActions
Source result (test suite)
whichbrowser/parser
/tests/data/mobile/os-windowsmobile.yaml
Mobile Internet Explorer 6.0Windows Mobile 6.1 HTCTouch Cruisemobile:smartyes Detail
Providers
BrowscapPhp
6012
IEMobile 7.6Trident 3.1WinCE HTCP3650Mobile Phoneyes0.007 Detail
DonatjUAParser
v0.5.0
IEMobile 7.6closeclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
NeutrinoApiCom
IE Mobile 7.6closeWindows HTCTouch Cruise/P3650mobile-browseryescloseclose0.19102 Detail
PiwikDeviceDetector
3.5.2
IE Mobile 7.6Trident Windows CE HTCP3650 Mozillasmartphoneyes0.004 Detail
SinergiBrowserDetector
6.0.0
Internet Explorer 6.0closeWindows CEclosecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
UAParser
v3.4.5
IE Mobile 7.6closeWindows CE HTCP3650closeclosecloseclose0.001 Detail
UserAgentStringCom
IE Mobile 7.6closeWindows CE closecloseclosecloseclose0.048 Detail
WhatIsMyBrowserCom
Internet Explorer Mobile Windows HTCcloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0.40804 Detail
WhichBrowser
2.0.10
Mobile Internet Explorer 6.0 Windows Mobile 6.1HTCTouch Cruisemobile:smartyescloseclose0.005 Detail
Woothee
v1.2.0
Internet Explorer 6.0closeclosecloseclosesmartphoneclosecloseclose0 Detail
Wurfl
1.6.4
IE Mobile closeWindows Mobile HTCTouch Cruise/P3650Feature Phoneyesyescloseclose0.015 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 13:40:42 | by ThaDafinser