User agent detail

MOT-VERBATIM_E1
GeneralDeviceBot
ProviderBrowserEngineOSBrandModelTypeIs mobileIs touchIs botNameTypeParse timeActions
Test suite
UAParser
v0.5.0.2
vendor/thadafinser/uap-core/tests/test_device.yaml
close MotorolaVERBATIM_E1closecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
Providers
BrowscapFull
6014
No result found
BrowscapLite
6014
No result found
BrowscapPhp
6014
No result found
DonatjUAParser
v0.5.1
MOT-VERBATIM closeclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
JenssegersAgent
v2.3.3
close closeclosecloseyescloseclose0 Detail
NeutrinoApiCom

close MotorolaVERBATIMmobile-browseryescloseclose0.21601 Detail
PiwikDeviceDetector
3.6.1
MotorolaVERBATIMsmartphoneyes0.002 Detail
SinergiBrowserDetector
6.0.1
No result found
UAParser
v3.4.5
close MotorolaVERBATIM_E1closeclosecloseclose0.001 Detail
UserAgentApiCom

closeclosecloseMobileclosecloseclose0.14901 Detail
UserAgentStringCom

No result found
WhatIsMyBrowserCom

Opera Mini MotorolaMotorola VERBATIMcloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0.25301 Detail
WhichBrowser
v2.0.18
MotorolaVERBATIMmobile:featureyescloseclose0.001 Detail
Woothee
v1.2.0
No result found
Wurfl
1.7.1.0
No result found
Zsxsoft
1.3
close MotorolaVERBATIMcloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0 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 08:00:42 | by ThaDafinser