User agent detail

Motorola-w385 Obigo/Q04C1 MMP/2.0 Profile/MIDP-2.0 Configuration/CLDC-1.1
GeneralDeviceBot
ProviderBrowserEngineOSBrandModelTypeIs mobileIs touchIs botNameTypeParse timeActions
Source result (test suite)
whichbrowser/parser
/tests/data/mobile/os-feature.yaml
Obigo Q 4C MotorolaW385mobile:featureyes Detail
Providers
BrowscapPhp
6012
No result found
DonatjUAParser
v0.5.0
Motorola-w385 closeclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
NeutrinoApiCom
Obigo closeJVM MotorolaW385mobile-browseryescloseclose0.188 Detail
PiwikDeviceDetector
3.5.2
Obigo Q04C1 Motorolaw385smartphoneyes0.008 Detail
SinergiBrowserDetector
6.0.0
No result found
UAParser
v3.4.5
Obigo 4.1close Motorolaw385closeclosecloseclose0.011 Detail
UserAgentStringCom
No result found
WhatIsMyBrowserCom
Obigo Q04C1 Browser Q04C1 closeclosecloseclosecloseclose0.413 Detail
WhichBrowser
2.0.10
Obigo Q 4C MotorolaW385mobile:featureyescloseclose0.013 Detail
Woothee
v1.2.0
No result found
Wurfl
1.6.4
Teleca Obigo Q04C1close MotorolaW385Feature Phoneyescloseclose0.019 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 13:41:36 | by ThaDafinser