User agent detail

Cricket-A415/1.0 Polaris/v6.17
GeneralDeviceBot
ProviderBrowserEngineOSBrandModelTypeIs mobileIs touchIs botNameTypeParse timeActions
Test suite
WhichBrowser
v2.0.18
vendor/whichbrowser/parser/tests/data/mobile/os-feature.yaml
Polaris 6.17 A415mobile:featureclosecloseclose0 Detail
Providers
BrowscapFull
6014
No result found
BrowscapLite
6014
No result found
BrowscapPhp
6014
No result found
DonatjUAParser
v0.5.1
Cricket-A415 1.0closeclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0.001 Detail
JenssegersAgent
v2.3.3
No result found
NeutrinoApiCom

Polaris 6.17close CricketA415mobile-browseryescloseclose0.21601 Detail
PiwikDeviceDetector
3.6.1
Polaris CricketA415feature phoneyes0.002 Detail
SinergiBrowserDetector
6.0.1
No result found
UAParser
v3.4.5
No result found
UserAgentApiCom

No result found
UserAgentStringCom

Polaris 6.17close closecloseclosecloseclose0.076 Detail
WhatIsMyBrowserCom

No result found
WhichBrowser
v2.0.18
Polaris 6.17 CricketA415mobile:featureyescloseclose0.002 Detail
Woothee
v1.2.0
No result found
Wurfl
1.7.1.0
close ZTEA415Feature Phoneyescloseclose0.02 Detail
Zsxsoft
1.3
Polaris v6.17close 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 07:57:31 | by ThaDafinser