User agent detail

D900i DoCoMo/2.0 D900i(c100;TB;W20H10)
GeneralDeviceBot
ProviderBrowserEngineOSBrandModelTypeIs mobileIs touchIs botNameTypeParse timeActions
Test suite
UAParser
v0.5.0.2
vendor/thadafinser/uap-core/tests/test_device.yaml
close DoCoMoD900iclosecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
Providers
BrowscapFull
6014
i-mode Browser 2.0 JAVA Mobile Deviceyes0.017 Detail
BrowscapLite
6014
No result found
BrowscapPhp
6014
i-mode Browser 2.0closeJAVA closecloseMobile Deviceyesclose0.01 Detail
DonatjUAParser
v0.5.1
D900i closeclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
JenssegersAgent
v2.3.3
No result found
NeutrinoApiCom

close MitsubishiD900imobile-browseryescloseclose0.20701 Detail
PiwikDeviceDetector
3.6.1
DoCoMoD900ifeature phoneyes0.005 Detail
SinergiBrowserDetector
6.0.1
No result found
UAParser
v3.4.5
close DoCoMoD900icloseclosecloseclose0.003 Detail
UserAgentApiCom

closeclosecloseMobileclosecloseclose0.15901 Detail
UserAgentStringCom

No result found
WhatIsMyBrowserCom

D900icloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0.23601 Detail
WhichBrowser
v2.0.18
MitsubishiD900imobile:featureyescloseclose0.003 Detail
Woothee
v1.2.0
docomo D900icloseclosecloseclosemobilephoneclosecloseclose0 Detail
Wurfl
1.7.1.0
close Feature Phoneyescloseclose0.015 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 07:57:12 | by ThaDafinser