User agent detail

MOT-280/00.00.00 MIB/2.2.1 Profile/MIDP-1.0 Configuration/CLDC-1.0
GeneralDeviceBot
ProviderBrowserEngineOSBrandModelTypeIs mobileIs touchIs botNameTypeParse timeActions
Test suite
UAParser
v0.5.0.2
vendor/thadafinser/uap-core/tests/test_device.yaml
close Motorola280closecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
Providers
BrowscapFull
6014
Motorola Internet Browser 2.2 Motorola280Mobile Phoneyes0.008 Detail
BrowscapLite
6014
No result found
BrowscapPhp
6014
No result found
DonatjUAParser
v0.5.1
MOT-280 closeclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
JenssegersAgent
v2.3.3
closeJavaOS closeclosecloseyescloseclose0 Detail
NeutrinoApiCom

Motorola Internet Browser 2.2.1close Motorola280mobile-browseryescloseclose0.24701 Detail
PiwikDeviceDetector
3.6.1
Motorola280smartphoneyes0.004 Detail
SinergiBrowserDetector
6.0.1
No result found
UAParser
v3.4.5
close Motorola280closeclosecloseclose0.007 Detail
UserAgentApiCom

closeclosecloseMobileclosecloseclose0.15301 Detail
UserAgentStringCom

MIB 2.2.1close closecloseclosecloseclose0.074 Detail
WhatIsMyBrowserCom

No result found
WhichBrowser
v2.0.18
Motorola Internet Browser 2.2.1 Motorola280mobile:featureyescloseclose0.005 Detail
Woothee
v1.2.0
No result found
Wurfl
1.7.1.0
Java Applet close Motorola280Feature Phoneyescloseclose0.022 Detail
Zsxsoft
1.3
MIB 2.2.1close Motorola280closeclosecloseclosecloseclose0.001 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 07:54:36 | by ThaDafinser