User agent detail

MOT-V300/0B.09.19R MIB/2.2 Profile/MIDP-2.0 Configuration/CLDC-1.0
GeneralDeviceBot
ProviderBrowserEngineOSBrandModelTypeIs mobileIs touchIs botNameTypeParse timeActions
Source result (test suite)
whichbrowser/parser
/tests/data/mobile/os-feature.yaml
Motorola Internet Browser 2.2 MotorolaV300mobile:featureyes Detail
Providers
BrowscapPhp
6012
Motorola Internet Browser 2.2 MotorolaV300Mobile Phoneyes0.012 Detail
DonatjUAParser
v0.5.0
MOT-V300 0B.09.19Rcloseclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
NeutrinoApiCom
Motorola Internet Browser 2.2close MotorolaV300mobile-browseryescloseclose0.19 Detail
PiwikDeviceDetector
3.5.2
MotorolaV300smartphoneyes0.006 Detail
SinergiBrowserDetector
6.0.0
No result found
UAParser
v3.4.5
close MotorolaV300closeclosecloseclose0.009 Detail
UserAgentStringCom
MIB 2.2close closecloseclosecloseclose0.082 Detail
WhatIsMyBrowserCom
Opera Mini MotorolaMotorola V300closeclosecloseclosecloseclose0.422 Detail
WhichBrowser
2.0.10
Motorola Internet Browser 2.2 MotorolaV300mobile:featureyescloseclose0.011 Detail
Woothee
v1.2.0
No result found
Wurfl
1.6.4
Java Applet close MotorolaV300Feature Phoneyescloseclose0.014 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 13:43:34 | by ThaDafinser