User agent detail

SAMSUNG-GT-E2152/E2152XXJK2 NetFront/3.5 Profile/MIDP-2.0 Configuration/CLDC-1.1
GeneralDeviceBot
ProviderBrowserEngineOSBrandModelTypeIs mobileIs touchIs botNameTypeParse timeActions
Source result (test suite)
piwik/device-detector
/Tests/fixtures/feature_phone.yml
NetFront 3.5 NetFront SamsungE2152feature phone Detail
Providers
BrowscapPhp
6012
NetFront 3.5NetFront Mobile Deviceyes0.027 Detail
DonatjUAParser
v0.5.0
SAMSUNG-GT-E2152 E2152XXJK2closeclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
NeutrinoApiCom
NetFront 3.5closeJVM SamsungGT-E2152mobile-browseryescloseclose0.182 Detail
PiwikDeviceDetector
3.5.2
NetFront 3.5NetFront SamsungE2152feature phoneyes0.007 Detail
SinergiBrowserDetector
6.0.0
No result found
UAParser
v3.4.5
NetFront 3.5close SamsungGT-E2152closeclosecloseclose0.004 Detail
UserAgentStringCom
NetFront 3.5close closecloseclosecloseclose0.043 Detail
WhatIsMyBrowserCom
NetFront Samsungcloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0.411 Detail
WhichBrowser
2.0.10
NetFront 3.5 SamsungGT-E2152 Duosmobile:featureyescloseclose0.004 Detail
Woothee
v1.2.0
No result found
Wurfl
1.6.4
NetFront 3.5close SamsungGT-E2152Feature Phoneyescloseclose0.017 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 13:27:41 | by ThaDafinser