User agent detail

LENOVO-P708_ENG_RUS_S280/(2006.10.12)S280/WAP1.2.1
GeneralDeviceBot
ProviderBrowserEngineOSBrandModelTypeIs mobileIs touchIs botNameTypeParse timeActions
Test suite
UAParser
v0.5.0.2
vendor/thadafinser/uap-core/tests/test_device.yaml
close LenovoP708_ENG_RUS_S280closecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
Providers
BrowscapFull
6014
No result found
BrowscapLite
6014
No result found
BrowscapPhp
6014
No result found
DonatjUAParser
v0.5.1
LENOVO-P708 closeclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
JenssegersAgent
v2.3.3
No result found
NeutrinoApiCom

close LenovoP708 ENG RUS S280mobile-browseryescloseclose0.20501 Detail
PiwikDeviceDetector
3.6.1
LenovoP708 ENG RUS S280smartphoneyes0.005 Detail
SinergiBrowserDetector
6.0.1
No result found
UAParser
v3.4.5
close LenovoP708_ENG_RUS_S280closeclosecloseclose0.004 Detail
UserAgentApiCom

No result found
UserAgentStringCom

No result found
WhatIsMyBrowserCom

No result found
WhichBrowser
v2.0.18
LenovoP708 ENG RUS S280mobile:featureyescloseclose0.004 Detail
Woothee
v1.2.0
No result found
Wurfl
1.7.1.0
close LenovoP708Feature Phoneyescloseclose0.073 Detail
Zsxsoft
1.3
close LenovoP708closeclosecloseclosecloseclose0.001 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 08:00:50 | by ThaDafinser