User agent detail

SAMSUNG-GT-S5230-ORANGE/S5230BVIF1 SHP/VPP/R5 Jasmine/0.8 Nextreaming SMM-MMS/1.2.0 profile/MIDP-2.1 configuration/CLDC-1.1
GeneralDeviceBot
ProviderBrowserEngineOSBrandModelTypeIs mobileIs touchIs botNameTypeParse timeActions
Source result (test suite)
piwik/device-detector
/Tests/fixtures/smartphone-3.yml
Jasmine 0.8 SamsungGT-S5230smartphone Detail
Providers
BrowscapPhp
6012
Jasmine 0.8NetFront JAVA SamsungGT-S5230Mobile Phoneyes0.06201 Detail
DonatjUAParser
v0.5.0
SAMSUNG-GT-S5230-ORANGE S5230BVIF1closeclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0.001 Detail
NeutrinoApiCom
Jasmine 0.8close SamsungGT-S5230mobile-browseryescloseclose0.197 Detail
PiwikDeviceDetector
3.5.2
Jasmine 0.8 SamsungGT-S5230smartphoneyes0.009 Detail
SinergiBrowserDetector
6.0.0
No result found
UAParser
v3.4.5
Jasmine 0.8close SamsungGT-S5230-ORANGEcloseclosecloseclose0.023 Detail
UserAgentStringCom
Jasmine 0.8close closecloseclosecloseclose0.058 Detail
WhatIsMyBrowserCom
Samsungcloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0.47 Detail
WhichBrowser
2.0.10
Dolfin 0.8 Touchwiz 1.0SamsungStarmobile:featureyescloseclose0.005 Detail
Woothee
v1.2.0
No result found
Wurfl
1.6.4
Java Applet close SamsungGT-S5230Feature Phoneyesyescloseclose0.027 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 13:27:52 | by ThaDafinser