User agent detail

MOT-MXE_V6/99.41.08R BER2.2 Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; 12163225) Profile/MIDP-2.0 Configuration/CLDC-1.1 Opera 8.00 [en]
GeneralDeviceBot
ProviderBrowserEngineOSBrandModelTypeIs mobileIs touchIs botNameTypeParse timeActions
Source result (test suite)
ua-parser/uap-core
vendor/thadafinser/uap-core/tests/test_device.yaml
MotorolaMXE_V6 Detail
Providers
BrowscapPhp
6012
No result found
DonatjUAParser
v0.5.0
Opera 8.00closeclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
NeutrinoApiCom
Opera 8.00close desktop-browsercloseclose0.19304 Detail
PiwikDeviceDetector
3.5.2
Opera 8.00Presto MotorolaMXEsmartphoneyes0.006 Detail
SinergiBrowserDetector
6.0.0
Opera 8.00close closecloseclosecloseclose0.001 Detail
UAParser
v3.4.5
Opera 8.0close MotorolaMXE_V6closeclosecloseclose0.015 Detail
UserAgentStringCom
Opera 8.00close closecloseclosecloseclose0.08002 Detail
WhatIsMyBrowserCom
Opera 8.0 closeclosecloseclosecloseclose0.40708 Detail
WhichBrowser
2.0.10
Opera Mini MotorolaMXEmobile:featureyescloseclose0.015 Detail
Woothee
v1.2.0
Internet Explorer 6.0closecloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
Wurfl
1.6.4
Teleca Obigo Q05Aclose Feature Phoneyescloseclose0.01701 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 13:41:59 | by ThaDafinser