User agent detail

Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; Polaris 6.2; Brew 3.1.5; En)/240X320 Samsung Sam-r631
GeneralDeviceBot
ProviderBrowserEngineOSBrandModelTypeIs mobileIs touchIs botNameTypeParse timeActions
Source result (test suite)
ua-parser/uap-core
vendor/thadafinser/uap-core/tests/test_device.yaml
SamsungSam-r631 Detail
Providers
BrowscapPhp
6012
No result found
DonatjUAParser
v0.5.0
No result found
NeutrinoApiCom
Polaris 6.2closeBrew 3.1.5SamsungMessenger Touch R631mobile-browseryescloseclose0.184 Detail
PiwikDeviceDetector
3.5.2
Polaris 6.2 Brew 3.1SamsungSam-r631smartphoneyes0.008 Detail
SinergiBrowserDetector
6.0.0
Mozilla 4.0close closecloseclosecloseclose0.001 Detail
UAParser
v3.4.5
Polaris 6.2close SamsungSam-r631closeclosecloseclose0.006 Detail
UserAgentStringCom
No result found
WhatIsMyBrowserCom
Netscape Navigator 4.0 closeclosecloseclosecloseclose0.416 Detail
WhichBrowser
2.0.10
Polaris 6.2 Brew 3.1.5SamsungMessenger Touch R631mobile:featureyescloseclose0.003 Detail
Woothee
v1.2.0
No result found
Wurfl
1.6.4
Opera 11.10closeLinux armv6l Feature Phoneyescloseclose0.017 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 2016-02-13 13:25:02 | by ThaDafinser