User agent detail

MOT-A1600/1.0 LinuxOS/2.4.20 Release/8.22.2006 Browser/Opera8.00 Profile/MIDP-2.0 Configuration/CLDC-1.1 Software/R542_G_11.61.27R
GeneralDeviceBot
ProviderBrowserEngineOSBrandModelTypeIs mobileIs touchIs botNameTypeParse timeActions
Source result (test suite)
ua-parser/uap-core
vendor/thadafinser/uap-core/tests/test_device.yaml
MotorolaA1600 Detail
Providers
BrowscapPhp
6012
No result found
DonatjUAParser
v0.5.0
MOT-A1600 1.0closeclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
NeutrinoApiCom
Opera Mobile 8.00closeEZX Linux MotorolaA1600mobile-browseryescloseclose0.19604 Detail
PiwikDeviceDetector
3.5.2
MotorolaA1600smartphoneyes0.004 Detail
SinergiBrowserDetector
6.0.0
Opera MIDP-2.0closeLinux closecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
UAParser
v3.4.5
closeLinux MotorolaA1600closeclosecloseclose0.002 Detail
UserAgentStringCom
Opera 8.00closeLinux closecloseclosecloseclose0.04601 Detail
WhatIsMyBrowserCom
Opera Linux closeclosecloseclosecloseclose0.41308 Detail
WhichBrowser
2.0.10
Opera Mobile 8.00 EZX Linux MotorolaA1600mobile:featureyescloseclose0.011 Detail
Woothee
v1.2.0
Opera closeclosecloseclosepcclosecloseclose0.001 Detail
Wurfl
1.6.4
Java Applet closeLinux MotorolaA1600Feature Phoneyescloseclose0.01601 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 13:41:52 | by ThaDafinser