User agent detail

MOT-MOTOQA1/A2.01.11R Release/09.24.2008 OPERA/BER2.2 Profile/MIDP-2.0 Configuration/CLDC-1.1
GeneralDeviceBot
ProviderBrowserEngineOSBrandModelTypeIs mobileIs touchIs botNameTypeParse timeActions
Test suite
WhichBrowser
v2.0.18
vendor/whichbrowser/parser/tests/data/mobile/os-feature.yaml
Opera Mini Karma QA1mobile:featureclosecloseclose0 Detail
Providers
BrowscapFull
6014
No result found
BrowscapLite
6014
No result found
BrowscapPhp
6014
No result found
DonatjUAParser
v0.5.1
Opera BER2.2closeclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
JenssegersAgent
v2.3.3
Opera closeJavaOS closeclosecloseyescloseclose0 Detail
NeutrinoApiCom

Opera Mini close MotorolaKarma QA1mobile-browseryescloseclose0.2028 Detail
PiwikDeviceDetector
3.6.1
MotorolaMOTOQA1smartphoneyes0.0156 Detail
SinergiBrowserDetector
6.0.1
Opera BER2.2close closecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
UAParser
v3.4.5
close MotorolaMOTOQA1closeclosecloseclose0.0156 Detail
UserAgentApiCom

Opera 2.2 closeclosecloseMobileclosecloseclose0.156 Detail
UserAgentStringCom

Opera close closecloseclosecloseclose0.1092 Detail
WhatIsMyBrowserCom

Opera closeclosecloseclosecloseclose0.236 Detail
WhichBrowser
v2.0.18
Opera Mini MotorolaKarma QA1mobile:featureyescloseclose0 Detail
Woothee
v1.2.0
No result found
Wurfl
1.7.1.0
Java Applet close MotorolaQA1Feature Phoneyescloseclose0.0156 Detail
Zsxsoft
1.3
Opera BER2.2close MotorolaMOTOQA1closeclosecloseclosecloseclose0 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 07:51:50 | by ThaDafinser