User agent detail

Mozilla/5.0 (Chinese Operating System 2.0; HTC 9089)
GeneralDeviceBot
ProviderBrowserEngineOSBrandModelTypeIs mobileIs touchIs botNameTypeParse timeActions
Test suite
WhichBrowser
v2.0.18
vendor/whichbrowser/parser/tests/data/mobile/os-cos.yaml
COS 2.09089mobile:smartclosecloseclose0 Detail
Providers
BrowscapFull
6014
No result found
BrowscapLite
6014
No result found
BrowscapPhp
6014
No result found
DonatjUAParser
v0.5.1
No result found
JenssegersAgent
v2.3.3
Opera close closeclosecloseyescloseclose0 Detail
NeutrinoApiCom

closeCOS 2.0HTC9089mobile-browseryescloseclose0.30602 Detail
PiwikDeviceDetector
3.6.1
HTC9089smartphoneyes0.005 Detail
SinergiBrowserDetector
6.0.1
Opera Systemclose closecloseclosecloseclose0.001 Detail
UAParser
v3.4.5
close HTC9089closeclosecloseclose0.005 Detail
UserAgentApiCom

Opera 2.0 closeclosecloseMobileclosecloseclose0.15301 Detail
UserAgentStringCom

No result found
WhatIsMyBrowserCom

Opera closeclosecloseclosecloseclose0.23301 Detail
WhichBrowser
v2.0.18
COS 2.0HTC9089mobile:smartyescloseclose0.002 Detail
Woothee
v1.2.0
Opera closecloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
Wurfl
1.7.1.0
close Feature Phoneyescloseclose0.015 Detail
Zsxsoft
1.3
Opera tingclose HTC9089closeclosecloseclosecloseclose0 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 07:55:13 | by ThaDafinser