User agent detail

Bluevibe 2.4 r3799 Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; SAMSUNG-GT-S3650/S3650XXII3 Profile/MIDP-2.0 Configuration/CLDC-1.0) UNTRUSTED/1.0
GeneralDeviceBot
ProviderBrowserEngineOSBrandModelTypeIs mobileIs touchIs botNameTypeParse timeActions
Source result (test suite)
ua-parser/uap-core
vendor/thadafinser/uap-core/tests/test_device.yaml
SamsungGT-S3650 Detail
Providers
BrowscapPhp
6012
No result found
DonatjUAParser
v0.5.0
MSIE 6.0closeclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
NeutrinoApiCom
IE 6.0close desktop-browsercloseclose0.195 Detail
PiwikDeviceDetector
3.5.2
Internet Explorer 6.0Trident SamsungGT-S3650smartphoneyes0.009 Detail
SinergiBrowserDetector
6.0.0
Internet Explorer 6.0close closecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
UAParser
v3.4.5
IE 6.0close SamsungGT-S3650closeclosecloseclose0.006 Detail
UserAgentStringCom
Internet Explorer 6.0close closecloseclosecloseclose0.072 Detail
WhatIsMyBrowserCom
Internet Explorer 6.0Trident Samsungcloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0.407 Detail
WhichBrowser
2.0.10
Internet Explorer 6.0 Touchwiz SamsungCorbymobile:featureyescloseclose0.006 Detail
Woothee
v1.2.0
Internet Explorer 6.0closecloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
Wurfl
1.6.4
Teleca Obigo Q05Aclose Feature Phoneyescloseclose0.014 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 13:26:03 | by ThaDafinser