User agent detail

MOTO-W760r/Mozilla/4.0 (compatible;MSIE 6.0;Linux W760r)/R63712_U_71.xx.yyI Profile/MIDP-2.0 Configuration/CLDC-1.1 Symphony 1.0
GeneralDeviceBot
ProviderBrowserEngineOSBrandModelTypeIs mobileIs touchIs botNameTypeParse timeActions
Source result (test suite)
ua-parser/uap-core
vendor/thadafinser/uap-core/tests/test_device.yaml
MotorolaW760r Detail
Providers
BrowscapPhp
6012
No result found
DonatjUAParser
v0.5.0
MSIE 6.0closeclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
NeutrinoApiCom
IE 6.0closeLinux desktop-browsercloseclose0.2 Detail
PiwikDeviceDetector
3.5.2
Internet Explorer 6.0Trident GNU/Linux MotorolaW760rsmartphoneyes0.006 Detail
SinergiBrowserDetector
6.0.0
Internet Explorer 6.0closeLinux closecloseclosecloseclose0.001 Detail
UAParser
v3.4.5
Symphony 1.0closeLinux MotorolaW760rcloseclosecloseclose0.006 Detail
UserAgentStringCom
Internet Explorer 6.0closeLinux closecloseclosecloseclose0.066 Detail
WhatIsMyBrowserCom
Internet Explorer 6.0Trident Linux closeclosecloseclosecloseclose0.413 Detail
WhichBrowser
2.0.10
Internet Explorer 6.0 Linux Motorola-W760rmobile:featureyescloseclose0.012 Detail
Woothee
v1.2.0
closeclosecloseclosepcclosecloseclose0 Detail
Wurfl
1.6.4
Java Applet closeLinux MotorolaW760rFeature 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 13:40:55 | by ThaDafinser