User agent detail

Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows CE; Opera/9.5) HTC-PPC6850 BM
GeneralDeviceBot
ProviderBrowserEngineOSBrandModelTypeIs mobileIs touchIs botNameTypeParse timeActions
Source result (test suite)
ua-parser/uap-core
vendor/thadafinser/uap-core/tests/test_device.yaml
HTCPPC6850 BM Detail
Providers
BrowscapPhp
6012
IE 6.0Trident WinCE Mobile Phoneyes0.021 Detail
DonatjUAParser
v0.5.0
Opera 9.5closeclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0.001 Detail
NeutrinoApiCom
IE 6.0closeWindows desktop-browsercloseclose0.18802 Detail
PiwikDeviceDetector
3.5.2
Opera 9.5Presto Windows CE HTCPPC6850smartphoneyes0.004 Detail
SinergiBrowserDetector
6.0.0
Opera 9.5)closeWindows CEclosecloseclosecloseclose0.001 Detail
UAParser
v3.4.5
Opera 9.5closeWindows CE HTCPPC6850 BMcloseclosecloseclose0.014 Detail
UserAgentStringCom
Opera 9.5closeWindows CE closecloseclosecloseclose0.06901 Detail
WhatIsMyBrowserCom
Opera 9.5 Windows closeclosecloseclosecloseclose0.40904 Detail
WhichBrowser
2.0.10
Opera Mobile 9.5 Windows CE HTCPPC6850 BMmobile:featureyescloseclose0.012 Detail
Woothee
v1.2.0
Internet Explorer 6.0closeclosecloseclosesmartphoneclosecloseclose0.001 Detail
Wurfl
1.6.4
IE Mobile closeWindows Mobile Feature Phoneyescloseclose0.016 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 13:42:40 | by ThaDafinser