User agent detail

MOT-K3m/99.40.07R BER2.2 Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; 12003173) Profile/MIDP-2.0 Configuration/CLDC-1.1 Opera 8.00 [de]
GeneralDeviceBot
ProviderBrowserEngineOSBrandModelTypeIs mobileIs touchIs botNameTypeParse timeActions
Source result (test suite)
ua-parser/uap-core
vendor/thadafinser/uap-core/tests/test_device.yaml
MotorolaK3m Detail
Providers
BrowscapPhp
6012
No result found
DonatjUAParser
v0.5.0
Opera 8.00closeclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
NeutrinoApiCom
Opera 8.00close desktop-browsercloseclose0.19904 Detail
PiwikDeviceDetector
3.5.2
Opera 8.00Presto MotorolaK3msmartphoneyes0.005 Detail
SinergiBrowserDetector
6.0.0
Opera 8.00close closecloseclosecloseclose0.001 Detail
UAParser
v3.4.5
Opera 8.0close MotorolaK3mcloseclosecloseclose0.01701 Detail
UserAgentStringCom
Opera 8.00close closecloseclosecloseclose0.13203 Detail
WhatIsMyBrowserCom
Opera 8.0 closeclosecloseclosecloseclose0.40808 Detail
WhichBrowser
2.0.10
Opera Mini MotorolaK3mmobile:featureyescloseclose0.01 Detail
Woothee
v1.2.0
Internet Explorer 6.0closecloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
Wurfl
1.6.4
Java Applet close MotorolaK3Feature Phoneyescloseclose0.02901 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 13:41:51 | by ThaDafinser