User agent detail

SAMSUNG-SGH-i900/1.0 (compatible; MSIE 4.01; Windows CE; PPC)/UC Browser7.8.0.95
GeneralDeviceBot
ProviderBrowserEngineOSBrandModelTypeIs mobileIs touchIs botNameTypeParse timeActions
Source result (test suite)
whichbrowser/parser
/tests/data/mobile/os-windowsmobile.yaml
UC Browser 7.8Windows Mobile Gecko Samsungi900 Omniamobile:smartyes Detail
Providers
BrowscapPhp
6012
UC Browser 7.8WebKit Android Mobile Phoneyesyes0.052 Detail
DonatjUAParser
v0.5.0
MSIE 4.01closeclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0.001 Detail
NeutrinoApiCom
IE Mobile 4.01closeWindows SamsungSGH i900mobile-browseryescloseclose0.18302 Detail
PiwikDeviceDetector
3.5.2
UC Browser 7.8 Windows CE SamsungSGH-i900smartphoneyes0.006 Detail
SinergiBrowserDetector
6.0.0
Internet Explorer 4.01closeWindows CEclosecloseclosecloseclose0.001 Detail
UAParser
v3.4.5
UC Browser 7.8.0closeWindows CE SamsungSGH-i900closeclosecloseclose0.003 Detail
UserAgentStringCom
Internet Explorer 4.01closeWindows CE closecloseclosecloseclose0.046 Detail
WhatIsMyBrowserCom
UC Browser 7.8.0.95 Windows closeclosecloseclosecloseclose0.41904 Detail
WhichBrowser
2.0.10
UC Browser 7.8Gecko Windows Mobile Samsungi900 Omniamobile:smartyescloseclose0.005 Detail
Woothee
v1.2.0
Internet Explorer 4.01closeclosecloseclosesmartphoneclosecloseclose0 Detail
Wurfl
1.6.4
IE Mobile closeWindows Mobile SamsungSGH i900Feature Phoneyesyescloseclose0.017 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 13:29:02 | by ThaDafinser