User agent detail

Lenovo-i300_VN/S102 LMP/LML Release/2009.08.13 Profile/MIDP2.0 Configuration/CLDC1.1
GeneralDeviceBot
ProviderBrowserEngineOSBrandModelTypeIs mobileIs touchIs botNameTypeParse timeActions
Source result (test suite)
ua-parser/uap-core
vendor/thadafinser/uap-core/tests/test_device.yaml
Lenovoi300_VN Detail
Providers
BrowscapPhp
6012
No result found
DonatjUAParser
v0.5.0
Lenovo-i300 closeclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0.001 Detail
NeutrinoApiCom
close Lenovoi300 VNmobile-browseryescloseclose0.191 Detail
PiwikDeviceDetector
3.5.2
Lenovoi300 VNsmartphoneyes0.005 Detail
SinergiBrowserDetector
6.0.0
No result found
UAParser
v3.4.5
close Lenovoi300_VNcloseclosecloseclose0.008 Detail
UserAgentStringCom
No result found
WhatIsMyBrowserCom
No result found
WhichBrowser
2.0.10
Lenovoi300 VNmobile:featureyescloseclose0.014 Detail
Woothee
v1.2.0
No result found
Wurfl
1.6.4
Opera 11.10closeLinux armv6l Feature Phoneyescloseclose0.024 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 13:43:28 | by ThaDafinser