User agent detail

CoolPadF800/CMCC WindowsCEOS/6.0/(2009.10.30)10.01.F800/WAP2.0 Profile/MIDP-2.0 Configuration/CLDC-1.1
GeneralDeviceBot
ProviderBrowserEngineOSBrandModelTypeIs mobileIs touchIs botNameTypeParse timeActions
Source result (test suite)
whichbrowser/parser
/tests/data/mobile/os-windowsmobile.yaml
Windows Mobile CoolpadF800mobile:smartyes Detail
Providers
BrowscapPhp
6012
No result found
DonatjUAParser
v0.5.0
CoolPadF800 CMCCcloseclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
NeutrinoApiCom
closeWindows Mobile CoolpadF800mobile-browseryescloseclose0.192 Detail
PiwikDeviceDetector
3.5.2
Windows CoolpadF800smartphoneyes0.004 Detail
SinergiBrowserDetector
6.0.0
No result found
UAParser
v3.4.5
closeWindows CE closeclosecloseclose0.003 Detail
UserAgentStringCom
No result found
WhatIsMyBrowserCom
Windows closeclosecloseclosecloseclose0.412 Detail
WhichBrowser
2.0.10
Windows Mobile CoolpadF800mobile:smartyescloseclose0.004 Detail
Woothee
v1.2.0
closeclosecloseclosepcclosecloseclose0 Detail
Wurfl
1.6.4
Opera 11.10closeLinux armv6l Feature Phoneyescloseclose0.009 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 13:42:42 | by ThaDafinser