User agent detail

SAMSUNG-SPH-M7200/(null)ID4 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows CE; PPC) Opera 9.5
GeneralDeviceBot
ProviderBrowserEngineOSBrandModelTypeIs mobileIs touchIs botNameTypeParse timeActions
Source result (test suite)
ua-parser/uap-core
vendor/thadafinser/uap-core/tests/test_device.yaml
SamsungSPH-M7200 Detail
Providers
BrowscapPhp
6012
No result found
DonatjUAParser
v0.5.0
Opera 9.5closeclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0.001 Detail
NeutrinoApiCom
IE Mobile 6.0closeWindows GenericWindows Mobilemobile-browseryescloseclose0.18402 Detail
PiwikDeviceDetector
3.5.2
Opera 9.5Presto Windows CE SamsungSPH-M7200smartphoneyes0.007 Detail
SinergiBrowserDetector
6.0.0
Opera 9.5closeWindows CEclosecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
UAParser
v3.4.5
Opera 9.5closeWindows CE SamsungSPH-M7200closeclosecloseclose0.008 Detail
UserAgentStringCom
Opera 9.5closeWindows CE closecloseclosecloseclose0.27603 Detail
WhatIsMyBrowserCom
Opera 9.5 Windows closeclosecloseclosecloseclose0.40604 Detail
WhichBrowser
2.0.10
Opera Mobile 9.5 Windows Mobile SamsungM7200 OMNIA POPmobile:smartyescloseclose0.004 Detail
Woothee
v1.2.0
Internet Explorer 6.0closeclosecloseclosesmartphoneclosecloseclose0.001 Detail
Wurfl
1.6.4
IE Mobile closeWindows Mobile Feature Phoneyescloseclose0.019 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 13:28:58 | by ThaDafinser