User agent detail

OneBrowser/3.1 (SAMSUNG-GT-E2250)
GeneralDeviceBot
ProviderBrowserEngineOSBrandModelTypeIs mobileIs touchIs botNameTypeParse timeActions
Source result (test suite)
ua-parser/uap-core
vendor/thadafinser/uap-core/tests/test_device.yaml
SamsungGT-E2250 Detail
Providers
BrowscapPhp
6012
OneBrowser 3.1WebKit Mobile Phoneyesyes0.008 Detail
DonatjUAParser
v0.5.0
OneBrowser 3.1closeclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
NeutrinoApiCom
OneBrowser 3.1close SamsungUticamobile-browseryescloseclose0.184 Detail
PiwikDeviceDetector
3.5.2
ONE Browser 3.1WebKit SamsungGT-E2250smartphoneyes0.011 Detail
SinergiBrowserDetector
6.0.0
No result found
UAParser
v3.4.5
ONE Browser 3.1close SamsungGT-E2250closeclosecloseclose0.009 Detail
UserAgentStringCom
No result found
WhatIsMyBrowserCom
OneBrowser 3.1 Samsungcloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0.407 Detail
WhichBrowser
2.0.10
OneBrowser 3.1 SamsungUticamobile:featureyescloseclose0.005 Detail
Woothee
v1.2.0
No result found
Wurfl
1.6.4
Opera 11.10closeLinux armv6l 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 13:26:55 | by ThaDafinser