User agent detail

PIAWindows/1.0 Name/HTC-Touch Diamond2 T5360 Software/5.2.21892 appMode/2
GeneralDeviceBot
ProviderBrowserEngineOSBrandModelTypeIs mobileIs touchIs botNameTypeParse timeActions
Source result (test suite)
ua-parser/uap-core
vendor/thadafinser/uap-core/tests/test_device.yaml
HTCTouch Diamond2 T5360 Software Detail
Providers
BrowscapPhp
6012
No result found
DonatjUAParser
v0.5.0
PIAWindows 1.0closeclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
NeutrinoApiCom
closeWindows HTCTouch Diamond2 T5360 Softwaremobile-browseryescloseclose0.19604 Detail
PiwikDeviceDetector
3.5.2
HTCTouchsmartphoneyes0.004 Detail
SinergiBrowserDetector
6.0.0
No result found
UAParser
v3.4.5
closeWindows HTCTouch Diamond2 T5360 Softwarecloseclosecloseclose0.011 Detail
UserAgentStringCom
No result found
WhatIsMyBrowserCom
Windows HTC Touchcloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0.42709 Detail
WhichBrowser
2.0.10
Windows HTCTouch Diamond2 T5360 Softwaremobile:featureyescloseclose0.02 Detail
Woothee
v1.2.0
closeclosecloseclosepcclosecloseclose0 Detail
Wurfl
1.6.4
Opera 11.10closeLinux armv6l Feature Phoneyescloseclose0.015 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 13:41:56 | by ThaDafinser