User agent detail

AIRNESS-AIR99/REV 2.2.1/Teleca Q03B1
GeneralDeviceBot
ProviderBrowserEngineOSBrandModelTypeIs mobileIs touchIs botNameTypeParse timeActions
Source result (test suite)
piwik/device-detector
/Tests/fixtures/feature_phone.yml
Obigo 3B AirnessAIR99feature phoneyes Detail
Providers
BrowscapPhp
6012
No result found
DonatjUAParser
v0.5.0
AIRNESS-AIR99 REVcloseclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
NeutrinoApiCom
Obigo Q 3close AirnessAIR99mobile-browseryescloseclose0.195 Detail
PiwikDeviceDetector
3.5.2
Obigo AirnessAIR99feature phoneyes0.009 Detail
SinergiBrowserDetector
6.0.0
No result found
UAParser
v3.4.5
Teleca Browser close closeclosecloseclose0.002 Detail
UserAgentStringCom
Teleca-Obigo close closecloseclosecloseclose0.099 Detail
WhatIsMyBrowserCom
No result found
WhichBrowser
2.0.10
Obigo Q 3B AirnessAIR99mobile:featureyescloseclose0.011 Detail
Woothee
v1.2.0
No result found
Wurfl
1.6.4
close AirnessAir99Feature Phoneyescloseclose0.018 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 13:42:41 | by ThaDafinser