User agent detail

Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows CE; IEMobile 7.6) i-mate 9502; 480x640
GeneralDeviceBot
ProviderBrowserEngineOSBrandModelTypeIs mobileIs touchIs botNameTypeParse timeActions
Source result (test suite)
ua-parser/uap-core
vendor/thadafinser/uap-core/tests/test_device.yaml
i-mate9502 Detail
Providers
BrowscapPhp
6012
IEMobile 7.6Trident 3.1WinCE Mobile Phoneyes0.02101 Detail
DonatjUAParser
v0.5.0
IEMobile 7.6closeclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
NeutrinoApiCom
IE Mobile 7.6closeWindows i-mate9502mobile-browseryescloseclose0.186 Detail
PiwikDeviceDetector
3.5.2
IE Mobile 7.6Trident Windows CE i-mate9502feature phoneyes0.004 Detail
SinergiBrowserDetector
6.0.0
Internet Explorer 6.0closeWindows CEclosecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
UAParser
v3.4.5
IE Mobile 7.6closeWindows CE i-mate9502closeclosecloseclose0.002 Detail
UserAgentStringCom
IE Mobile 7.6closeWindows CE closecloseclosecloseclose0.062 Detail
WhatIsMyBrowserCom
Internet Explorer Mobile Windows closeclosecloseclosecloseclose0.458 Detail
WhichBrowser
2.0.10
Mobile Internet Explorer 6.0 Windows Mobile 6.1i-mateUltimate 9502mobile:smartyescloseclose0.005 Detail
Woothee
v1.2.0
Internet Explorer 6.0closeclosecloseclosesmartphoneclosecloseclose0.001 Detail
Wurfl
1.6.4
IE Mobile closeWindows Mobile i-mate9502Feature Phoneyescloseclose0.02801 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 13:41:38 | by ThaDafinser