User agent detail

DoCoMo/2.0 F06B(c500;TB;W20H13)
GeneralDeviceBot
ProviderBrowserEngineOSBrandModelTypeIs mobileIs touchIs botNameTypeParse timeActions
Test suite
UAParser
v0.5.0.2
vendor/thadafinser/uap-core/tests/test_device.yaml
close DoCoMoF06Bclosecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
WhichBrowser
v2.0.18
vendor/whichbrowser/parser/tests/data/mobile/os-symbian.yaml
MOAP(S) F06Bmobile:featureclosecloseclose0 Detail
Providers
BrowscapFull
6014
i-mode Browser 2.0 JAVA Mobile Deviceyes0.004 Detail
BrowscapLite
6014
No result found
BrowscapPhp
6014
i-mode Browser 2.0closeJAVA closecloseMobile Deviceyesclose0.009 Detail
DonatjUAParser
v0.5.1
DoCoMo 2.0closeclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
JenssegersAgent
v2.3.3
No result found
NeutrinoApiCom

NetFront close DoCoMomobile-browseryescloseclose0.19701 Detail
PiwikDeviceDetector
3.6.1
DoCoMoF06Bfeature phoneyes0.003 Detail
SinergiBrowserDetector
6.0.1
No result found
UAParser
v3.4.5
close DoCoMoF06Bcloseclosecloseclose0.005 Detail
UserAgentApiCom

closeclosecloseMobileclosecloseclose0.15001 Detail
UserAgentStringCom

No result found
WhatIsMyBrowserCom

F06Bcloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0.40602 Detail
WhichBrowser
v2.0.18
MOAP(S) FujitsuF06Bmobile:featureyescloseclose0.004 Detail
Woothee
v1.2.0
docomo F06Bcloseclosecloseclosemobilephoneclosecloseclose0 Detail
Wurfl
1.7.1.0
close DoCoMoF-06BFeature Phoneyescloseclose0.019 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 07:58:12 | by ThaDafinser