User agent detail

dopodT8588/1.0 WindowsMobile/6.5 CEOS/5.2 release/5.0 Opera/9.7 WAP2.0 Profile/MIDP2.0 Configuration/CLDC1.1 4.0 (compatible; MSIE 4.01; Windows CE; PPC)/UCWEB8.2.0.116/31/800
GeneralDeviceBot
ProviderBrowserEngineOSBrandModelTypeIs mobileIs touchIs botNameTypeParse timeActions
Source result (test suite)
whichbrowser/parser
/tests/data/mobile/os-windowsmobile.yaml
UC Browser 8.2Windows Mobile 6.5Gecko DopodT8588mobile:smartyes Detail
Providers
BrowscapPhp
6012
No result found
DonatjUAParser
v0.5.0
Opera 9.7closeclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0.001 Detail
NeutrinoApiCom
UC Browser closeWindows GenericWindows Mobilemobile-browseryescloseclose0.25703 Detail
PiwikDeviceDetector
3.5.2
Opera 9.7Presto Windows CE DopodT8588feature phoneyes0.004 Detail
SinergiBrowserDetector
6.0.0
Opera 9.7closeWindows CEclosecloseclosecloseclose0.001 Detail
UAParser
v3.4.5
UC Browser 8.2.0closeWindows Mobile closeclosecloseclose0.002 Detail
UserAgentStringCom
Opera 9.7closeWindows CE closecloseclosecloseclose0.07901 Detail
WhatIsMyBrowserCom
UC Browser 8.2.0.116 Windows closeclosecloseclosecloseclose0.40004 Detail
WhichBrowser
2.0.10
UC Browser 8.2Gecko Windows Mobile 6.5DopodT8588mobile:smartyescloseclose0.003 Detail
Woothee
v1.2.0
Internet Explorer 4.01closeclosecloseclosesmartphoneclosecloseclose0 Detail
Wurfl
1.6.4
IE Mobile closeWindows Mobile 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 13:42:25 | by ThaDafinser