User agent detail

MOT-W398/0E3048R MIB/221 PROFILE/MIDP-20 CONFIGURATION/CLDC-11
GeneralDeviceBot
ProviderBrowserEngineOSBrandModelTypeIs mobileIs touchIs botNameTypeParse timeActions
Source result (test suite)
ua-parser/uap-core
vendor/thadafinser/uap-core/tests/test_device.yaml
MotorolaW398 Detail
Providers
BrowscapPhp
6012
No result found
DonatjUAParser
v0.5.0
MOT-W398 0E3048Rcloseclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
NeutrinoApiCom
Motorola Internet Browser 221close mobile-browseryescloseclose0.191 Detail
PiwikDeviceDetector
3.5.2
MotorolaW398smartphoneyes0.005 Detail
SinergiBrowserDetector
6.0.0
No result found
UAParser
v3.4.5
close MotorolaW398closeclosecloseclose0.004 Detail
UserAgentStringCom
MIB 221close closecloseclosecloseclose0.865 Detail
WhatIsMyBrowserCom
No result found
WhichBrowser
2.0.10
Motorola Internet Browser 221 MotorolaW398mobile:featureyescloseclose0.01 Detail
Woothee
v1.2.0
No result found
Wurfl
1.6.4
Opera 11.10closeLinux armv6l 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 13:42:54 | by ThaDafinser