User agent detail

SAMSUNG-GT-S5600L/1.0 SHP/VPP/R5 Jasmine/0.8 Qtv5.3 SMM-MMS/1.2.0 profile/MIDP-2.1 configuration/CLDC-1.1
GeneralDeviceBot
ProviderBrowserEngineOSBrandModelTypeIs mobileIs touchIs botNameTypeParse timeActions
Source result (test suite)
ua-parser/uap-core
vendor/thadafinser/uap-core/tests/test_device.yaml
SamsungGT-S5600L Detail
Providers
BrowscapPhp
6012
Jasmine 0.8NetFront JAVA SamsungGT-S5600Mobile Phoneyes0.014 Detail
DonatjUAParser
v0.5.0
SAMSUNG-GT-S5600L 1.0closeclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
NeutrinoApiCom
Jasmine 0.8close SamsungGT S5600mobile-browseryescloseclose0.45204 Detail
PiwikDeviceDetector
3.5.2
Jasmine 0.8 SamsungGT-S5600Lsmartphoneyes0.006 Detail
SinergiBrowserDetector
6.0.0
No result found
UAParser
v3.4.5
Jasmine 0.8close SamsungGT-S5600Lcloseclosecloseclose0.002 Detail
UserAgentStringCom
Jasmine 0.8close closecloseclosecloseclose0.04801 Detail
WhatIsMyBrowserCom
Samsungcloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0.40204 Detail
WhichBrowser
2.0.10
Dolfin 0.8 SamsungGT-S5600Lmobile:featureyescloseclose0.012 Detail
Woothee
v1.2.0
No result found
Wurfl
1.6.4
Java Applet close SamsungGT S5600Feature Phoneyesyescloseclose0.03 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 13:26:36 | by ThaDafinser