User agent detail

SAMSUNG-SGH-L288/1.0 SHP/VPP1.0 Release/12.15.2006 Browser/R5.NetFront3.4 Profile/MIDP-2.0 Configuration/CLDC-1.1 SMM-MMS/1.2.0
GeneralDeviceBot
ProviderBrowserEngineOSBrandModelTypeIs mobileIs touchIs botNameTypeParse timeActions
Source result (test suite)
ua-parser/uap-core
vendor/thadafinser/uap-core/tests/test_device.yaml
SamsungSGH-L288 Detail
Providers
BrowscapPhp
6012
No result found
DonatjUAParser
v0.5.0
SAMSUNG-SGH-L288 1.0closeclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
NeutrinoApiCom
NetFront 3.4closeJVM mobile-browseryescloseclose0.19102 Detail
PiwikDeviceDetector
3.5.2
NetFront NetFront SamsungSGH-L288smartphoneyes0.012 Detail
SinergiBrowserDetector
6.0.0
No result found
UAParser
v3.4.5
close SamsungSGH-L288closeclosecloseclose0.015 Detail
UserAgentStringCom
NetFront 3.4close closecloseclosecloseclose0.05101 Detail
WhatIsMyBrowserCom
NetFront Samsungcloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0.41404 Detail
WhichBrowser
2.0.10
NetFront 3.4 SamsungSGH-L288mobile:featureyescloseclose0.015 Detail
Woothee
v1.2.0
No result found
Wurfl
1.6.4
Opera 11.10closeLinux armv6l Feature Phoneyescloseclose0.019 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 13:25:36 | by ThaDafinser