User agent detail

Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Linux; Motorola A910; 781) MOT-A910/R57_G_10.06.2FI Profile/MIDP-2.0 Configuration/CLDC-1.1 Opera 8.50 [en]
GeneralDeviceBot
ProviderBrowserEngineOSBrandModelTypeIs mobileIs touchIs botNameTypeParse timeActions
Source result (test suite)
ua-parser/uap-core
vendor/thadafinser/uap-core/tests/test_device.yaml
MotorolaA910 Detail
Providers
BrowscapPhp
6012
IE 6.0Trident Windows DesktopDesktop0.03801 Detail
DonatjUAParser
v0.5.0
Opera 8.50closeclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
NeutrinoApiCom
Opera 8.50closeLinux desktop-browsercloseclose0.19304 Detail
PiwikDeviceDetector
3.5.2
Opera 8.50Presto GNU/Linux MotorolaA910smartphoneyes0.01 Detail
SinergiBrowserDetector
6.0.0
Opera 8.50closeLinux closecloseclosecloseclose0.001 Detail
UAParser
v3.4.5
Opera 8.50closeLinux MotorolaA910closeclosecloseclose0.006 Detail
UserAgentStringCom
Opera 8.50closeLinux closecloseclosecloseclose0.05301 Detail
WhatIsMyBrowserCom
Opera 8.50 Linux closeclosecloseclosecloseclose0.40608 Detail
WhichBrowser
2.0.10
Opera Mobile 8.50 Linux MotorolaA910mobile:featureyescloseclose0.012 Detail
Woothee
v1.2.0
Internet Explorer 6.0closeclosecloseclosepcclosecloseclose0.001 Detail
Wurfl
1.6.4
Java Applet closeLinux MotorolaA910Feature Phoneyescloseclose0.02001 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 13:41:58 | by ThaDafinser