User agent detail

DoCoMo/2.0 F901iS(c100;TB;W23H12)
GeneralDeviceBot
ProviderBrowserEngineOSBrandModelTypeIs mobileIs touchIs botNameTypeParse timeActions
Test suite
UAParser
v0.5.0.2
vendor/thadafinser/uap-core/tests/test_device.yaml
close DoCoMoF901iSclosecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
Providers
BrowscapFull
6014
DoCoMo 2.0 JAVA Mobile Deviceyes0.006 Detail
BrowscapLite
6014
No result found
BrowscapPhp
6014
DoCoMo 2.0closeJAVA closecloseMobile Deviceyesclose0.012 Detail
DonatjUAParser
v0.5.1
DoCoMo 2.0closeclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
JenssegersAgent
v2.3.3
No result found
NeutrinoApiCom

NetFront close DoCoMomobile-browseryescloseclose0.22501 Detail
PiwikDeviceDetector
3.6.1
DoCoMoF901iSfeature phoneyes0.006 Detail
SinergiBrowserDetector
6.0.1
No result found
UAParser
v3.4.5
close DoCoMoF901iScloseclosecloseclose0.005 Detail
UserAgentApiCom

closeclosecloseMobileclosecloseclose0.17001 Detail
UserAgentStringCom

No result found
WhatIsMyBrowserCom

F901iScloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0.24001 Detail
WhichBrowser
v2.0.18
FujitsuF901iSmobile:featureyescloseclose0 Detail
Woothee
v1.2.0
docomo F901iScloseclosecloseclosemobilephoneclosecloseclose0 Detail
Wurfl
1.7.1.0
close DoCoMoFeature Phoneyescloseclose0.016 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 07:56:00 | by ThaDafinser