User agent detail

Mozilla/5.0 (compatible; DoCoMo/1.0/D505i/c20/TB/W20H10; http://www.rcdtokyo.com/pc2m/)
GeneralDeviceBot
ProviderBrowserEngineOSBrandModelTypeIs mobileIs touchIs botNameTypeParse timeActions
Test suite
Woothee
v1.3.0
vendor/woothee/woothee-testset/testsets/mobilephone_docomo.yaml
docomo D505iclosedocomo closeclosemobilephoneclosecloseclose0 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
Mozilla close closecloseclosecloseclose0.005 Detail
NeutrinoApiCom

close MitsubishiD505imobile-browseryescloseclose0.21501 Detail
PiwikDeviceDetector
3.6.1
DoCoMoD505ifeature phoneyes0.005 Detail
SinergiBrowserDetector
6.0.1
Mozilla 5.0close closecloseclosecloseclose0.001 Detail
UAParser
v3.4.5
No result found
UserAgentApiCom

Mozilla 5.0 closeclosecloseMobileclosecloseclose0.15701 Detail
UserAgentStringCom

No result found
WhatIsMyBrowserCom

Mozilla 5.0 D505icloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0.24401 Detail
WhichBrowser
v2.0.18
MitsubishiD505imobile:featureyescloseclose0.002 Detail
Woothee
v1.2.0
docomo D505icloseclosecloseclosemobilephoneclosecloseclose0 Detail
Wurfl
1.7.1.0
close Feature Phoneyescloseclose0.017 Detail
Zsxsoft
1.3
DoCoMo 1.0close 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 07:57:41 | by ThaDafinser