User agent detail

Mozilla/5.0 (Linux; Android 3.2; SGH-T859 Build/HTJ85B) AppleWebKit/537.22 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/25.0.1364.123 Safari/537.22 OPR/14.0.1025.53463
GeneralDeviceBot
ProviderBrowserEngineOSBrandModelTypeIs mobileIs touchIs botNameTypeParse timeActions
Source result (test suite)
ua-parser/uap-core
vendor/thadafinser/uap-core/tests/test_device.yaml
SamsungSGH-T859 Detail
Providers
BrowscapPhp
6012
Opera Mobile 14.0Blink Android Mobile Phoneyesyes0.027 Detail
DonatjUAParser
v0.5.0
Opera Next 14.0.1025.53463closeclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
NeutrinoApiCom
Opera Mobile 14.0.1025.53463closeAndroid 3.2SamsungSGH-T859mobile-browseryescloseclose0.27203 Detail
PiwikDeviceDetector
3.5.2
Opera 14.0Presto Android 3.2SamsungSGH-T859smartphoneyes0.005 Detail
SinergiBrowserDetector
6.0.0
Opera 14.0.1025.53463closeAndroid 3.2closecloseyesclosecloseclose0.001 Detail
UAParser
v3.4.5
Opera 14.0.1025closeAndroid 3.2SamsungSGH-T859closeclosecloseclose0.001 Detail
UserAgentStringCom
Android Webkit Browser closeAndroid 3.2closecloseclosecloseclose0.11401 Detail
WhatIsMyBrowserCom
Opera 14.0.1025.53463WebKit 537.22Android 3.2Samsungcloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0.41304 Detail
WhichBrowser
2.0.10
Opera 14.0Webkit 537.22Android 3.2SamsungGalaxy Tab 10.1tabletyescloseclose0.04 Detail
Woothee
v1.2.0
Opera 14.0.1025.53463closeclosecloseclosesmartphoneclosecloseclose0 Detail
Wurfl
1.6.4
Opera 14closeAndroid 3.2SamsungSGH-T859Tabletyesyescloseclose0.06501 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 13:26:06 | by ThaDafinser