User agent detail

SAMSUNG-GT-C3312R Opera/9.80 (X11; Linux zvav; U; en) Presto/2.12.423 Version/12.16
GeneralDeviceBot
ProviderBrowserEngineOSBrandModelTypeIs mobileIs touchIs botNameTypeParse timeActions
Source result (test suite)
browscap/browscap
/tests/fixtures/issues/issue-712.php
Opera Mobile 12.16JAVA unknown2.12 SamsungGT-C3312RMobile Phoneyes Detail
Providers
BrowscapPhp
6012
Opera Mobile 12.16Presto 2.12JAVA SamsungGT-C3312RMobile Phoneyes0.011 Detail
DonatjUAParser
v0.5.0
Opera 12.16closeclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0.001 Detail
NeutrinoApiCom
Opera Mini close SamsungRex 60mobile-browseryescloseclose0.18202 Detail
PiwikDeviceDetector
3.5.2
Opera 12.16Presto GNU/Linux SamsungGT-C3312Rsmartphoneyes0.013 Detail
SinergiBrowserDetector
6.0.0
Opera 12.16closeLinux closecloseclosecloseclose0.001 Detail
UAParser
v3.4.5
Opera 12.16closeLinux SamsungGT-C3312Rcloseclosecloseclose0.008 Detail
UserAgentStringCom
Opera 12.16closeLinux closecloseclosecloseclose0.07401 Detail
WhatIsMyBrowserCom
Opera 12.16Presto 2.12.423Linux Samsungcloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0.40604 Detail
WhichBrowser
2.0.10
Opera Mini Presto 2.12.423 SamsungRex 60mobile:featureyescloseclose0.007 Detail
Woothee
v1.2.0
Opera 12.16closeclosecloseclosepcclosecloseclose0 Detail
Wurfl
1.6.4
Opera 11.10closeLinux armv6l Feature Phoneyescloseclose0.008 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 13:25:47 | by ThaDafinser