User agent detail

Mozilla/5.0 (SMART-TV; Linux; Tizen 2.3) AppleWebkit/538.1 (KHTML, like Gecko) SamsungBrowser/1.0 TV Safari/538.1
GeneralDeviceBot
ProviderBrowserEngineOSBrandModelTypeIs mobileIs touchIs botNameTypeParse timeActions
Source result (test suite)
browscap/browscap
/tests/fixtures/issues/issue-681.php
Samsung Browser 1.0Tizen 2.3unknown SamsungSmart TVTV Device Detail
Providers
BrowscapPhp
6012
Samsung Browser 1.0WebKit Tizen 2.3SamsungSmart TVTV Device0.043 Detail
DonatjUAParser
v0.5.0
AppleWebkit 538.1closeclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0.001 Detail
NeutrinoApiCom
Safari 538.1closeLinux desktop-browsercloseclose0.185 Detail
PiwikDeviceDetector
3.5.2
Safari WebKit Tizen 2.3SamsungSmart TVtvyes0.008 Detail
SinergiBrowserDetector
6.0.0
Safari closeLinux closecloseclosecloseclose0.001 Detail
UAParser
v3.4.5
Safari closeLinux closeclosecloseclose0.009 Detail
UserAgentStringCom
Safari closeLinux closecloseclosecloseclose0.117 Detail
WhatIsMyBrowserCom
WebKit 538.1Smart TV closeclosecloseclosecloseclose0.40401 Detail
WhichBrowser
2.0.10
Samsung Browser 1.0Webkit 538.1Tizen 2.3SamsungSmart TVtelevisioncloseclose0.004 Detail
Woothee
v1.2.0
Safari closeclosecloseclosepcclosecloseclose0.001 Detail
Wurfl
1.6.4
Opera 12.11closeLinux armv7l SmartTVSmart-TVcloseclose0.008 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 13:27:15 | by ThaDafinser