User agent detail

SAMSUNG-GT-S5350L/1.0 SHP/VPP/R5 NetFront/3.5 SMM-MMS/1.2.0 profile/MIDP-2.1 configuration/CLDC-1.1 OPN-N
GeneralDeviceBot
ProviderBrowserEngineOSBrandModelTypeIs mobileIs touchIs botNameTypeParse timeActions
Source result (test suite)
ua-parser/uap-core
vendor/thadafinser/uap-core/tests/test_device.yaml
SamsungGT-S5350L Detail
Providers
BrowscapPhp
6012
NetFront 3.5NetFront Mobile Deviceyes0.021 Detail
DonatjUAParser
v0.5.0
SAMSUNG-GT-S5350L 1.0closeclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0.001 Detail
NeutrinoApiCom
NetFront 3.5closeJVM AccessNetFront Ver. 3.5mobile-browseryescloseclose0.19202 Detail
PiwikDeviceDetector
3.5.2
NetFront 3.5NetFront SamsungGT-S5350Lsmartphoneyes0.007 Detail
SinergiBrowserDetector
6.0.0
No result found
UAParser
v3.4.5
NetFront 3.5close SamsungGT-S5350Lcloseclosecloseclose0.021 Detail
UserAgentStringCom
NetFront 3.5close closecloseclosecloseclose0.045 Detail
WhatIsMyBrowserCom
NetFront Samsungcloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0.40304 Detail
WhichBrowser
2.0.10
NetFront 3.5 SamsungGT-S5350Lmobile:featureyescloseclose0.012 Detail
Woothee
v1.2.0
No result found
Wurfl
1.6.4
NetFront 3.5close AccessNetFront Ver. 3.5Feature Phoneyescloseclose0.021 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 13:28:59 | by ThaDafinser