User agent detail

UTSTARCOM-GTX75/UC1.88 POLARIS/6.00 Profile/MIDP-2.0 Configuration/CLDC-1.1 UNTRUSTED/1.0
GeneralDeviceBot
ProviderBrowserEngineOSBrandModelTypeIs mobileIs touchIs botNameTypeParse timeActions
Test suite
Browscap
6014
vendor/browscap/browscap/tests/fixtures/issues/issue-317.php
Polaris 6.0unknown unknownunknown unknownAT&TQuickfireMobile Phoneyes0 Detail
Providers
BrowscapFull
6014
Polaris 6.0 AT&TQuickfireMobile Phoneyes0.008 Detail
BrowscapLite
6014
No result found
BrowscapPhp
6014
Polaris 6.0close closecloseMobile Deviceyesclose0.057 Detail
DonatjUAParser
v0.5.1
UTSTARCOM-GTX75 UC1.88closeclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
JenssegersAgent
v2.3.3
closeJavaOS closeclosecloseyescloseclose0.001 Detail
NeutrinoApiCom

Polaris 6.00closeJVM J2ME Midletmobile-browseryescloseclose0.25801 Detail
PiwikDeviceDetector
3.6.1
Polaris 6.00 AudiovoxCDM-GTX75smartphoneyes0.002 Detail
SinergiBrowserDetector
6.0.1
No result found
UAParser
v3.4.5
Polaris 6.0close closeclosecloseclose0.001 Detail
UserAgentApiCom

closeclosecloseMobileclosecloseclose0.16601 Detail
UserAgentStringCom

Polaris 6.00close closecloseclosecloseclose0.1 Detail
WhatIsMyBrowserCom

No result found
WhichBrowser
v2.0.18
Polaris 6.00 mobile:featureyescloseclose0.004 Detail
Woothee
v1.2.0
No result found
Wurfl
1.7.1.0
Java Applet close J2ME MidletFeature Phoneyescloseclose0.016 Detail
Zsxsoft
1.3
Polaris 6.00close closeclosecloseclosecloseclose0.001 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 07:56:03 | by ThaDafinser