User agent detail

iBrowser/Mini2.8 (SAMSUNG-GT-C6712/C6712DDKE1)
GeneralDeviceBot
ProviderBrowserEngineOSBrandModelTypeIs mobileIs touchIs botNameTypeParse timeActions
Source result (test suite)
whichbrowser/parser
/tests/data/mobile/browser-ibrowser.yaml
iBrowser Mini 2.8Touchwiz SamsungStar II Duosmobile:featureyes Detail
Providers
BrowscapPhp
6012
iBrowser 2.8WebKit Mobile Phoneyesyes0.006 Detail
DonatjUAParser
v0.5.0
iBrowser Mini2.8closeclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
NeutrinoApiCom
IBrowse close desktop-browsercloseclose0.19102 Detail
PiwikDeviceDetector
3.5.2
IBrowse SamsungGT-C6712smartphoneyes0.006 Detail
SinergiBrowserDetector
6.0.0
No result found
UAParser
v3.4.5
iBrowser Mini 2.8close SamsungGT-C6712closeclosecloseclose0.002 Detail
UserAgentStringCom
No result found
WhatIsMyBrowserCom
Samsungcloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0.43704 Detail
WhichBrowser
2.0.10
iBrowser Mini 2.8 Touchwiz SamsungStar II Duosmobile:featureyescloseclose0.005 Detail
Woothee
v1.2.0
No result found
Wurfl
1.6.4
Opera 11.10closeLinux armv6l Feature Phoneyescloseclose0.009 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 13:26:40 | by ThaDafinser