User agent detail

DoCoMo/2.0 D702iF
GeneralDeviceBot
ProviderBrowserEngineOSBrandModelTypeIs mobileIs touchIs botNameTypeParse timeActions
Test suite
UAParser
v0.5.0.2
vendor/thadafinser/uap-core/tests/test_device.yaml
close DoCoMoD702iFclosecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
Providers
BrowscapFull
6014
DoCoMo 2.0 JAVA Mobile Deviceyes0.0156 Detail
BrowscapLite
6014
No result found
BrowscapPhp
6014
DoCoMo 2.0closeJAVA closecloseMobile Deviceyesclose0.0156 Detail
DonatjUAParser
v0.5.1
DoCoMo 2.0closeclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
JenssegersAgent
v2.3.3
No result found
NeutrinoApiCom

NetFront close DoCoMoD702iFmobile-browseryescloseclose0.2028 Detail
PiwikDeviceDetector
3.6.1
DoCoMoD702iFfeature phoneyes0.0156 Detail
SinergiBrowserDetector
6.0.1
No result found
UAParser
v3.4.5
close DoCoMoD702iFcloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
UserAgentApiCom

closeclosecloseMobileclosecloseclose0.1404 Detail
UserAgentStringCom

No result found
WhatIsMyBrowserCom

D702iFcloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0.234 Detail
WhichBrowser
v2.0.18
MitsubishiD702iFmobile:featureyescloseclose0 Detail
Woothee
v1.2.0
docomo D702iFcloseclosecloseclosemobilephoneclosecloseclose0 Detail
Wurfl
1.7.1.0
close DoCoMoD702iFFeature Phoneyescloseclose0.0312 Detail
Zsxsoft
1.3
DoCoMo 2.0close closeclosecloseclosecloseclose0 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 2016-05-10 07:50:14 | by ThaDafinser