User agent detail

SAMSUNG-GT-I8320-Vodafone/I8320BUJC1 Linux/X2/R1 Opera/9.6 SMS-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
Opera 9.6GNU/Linux Presto SamsungH1smartphoneyes Detail
Providers
BrowscapPhp
6012
No result found
DonatjUAParser
v0.5.0
Opera 9.6closeclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
NeutrinoApiCom
Opera Mobile 9.6closeLiMo Vodafone360 H1mobile-browseryescloseclose0.17802 Detail
PiwikDeviceDetector
3.5.2
Opera 9.6Presto GNU/Linux SamsungH1smartphoneyes0.012 Detail
SinergiBrowserDetector
6.0.0
Opera 9.6closeLinux closecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
UAParser
v3.4.5
Opera 9.6closeLinux SamsungGT-I8320-Vodafonecloseclosecloseclose0.011 Detail
UserAgentStringCom
Opera 9.6closeLinux closecloseclosecloseclose0.046 Detail
WhatIsMyBrowserCom
Opera 9.6 Linux Samsungcloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0.41104 Detail
WhichBrowser
2.0.10
Opera Mobile 9.6 LiMo Vodafone360 H1mobile:featureyescloseclose0.006 Detail
Woothee
v1.2.0
Opera 9.6closeclosecloseclosepcclosecloseclose0.001 Detail
Wurfl
1.6.4
Java Applet closeLinux SamsungGT-I8320Feature Phoneyesyescloseclose0.015 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 13:28:26 | by ThaDafinser