User agent detail

SAMSUNG-GT-I6410-Vodafone/I6410BUJB7 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)
whichbrowser/parser
/tests/data/mobile/os-limo.yaml
Opera Mobile 9.6LiMo Vodafone360 M1mobile:featureyes Detail
Providers
BrowscapPhp
6012
No result found
DonatjUAParser
v0.5.0
Opera 9.6closeclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0.001 Detail
NeutrinoApiCom
Opera Mobile 9.6closeLiMo Vodafone360 M1mobile-browseryescloseclose0.195 Detail
PiwikDeviceDetector
3.5.2
Opera 9.6Presto GNU/Linux SamsungGT-I6410smartphoneyes0.011 Detail
SinergiBrowserDetector
6.0.0
Opera 9.6closeLinux closecloseclosecloseclose0.001 Detail
UAParser
v3.4.5
Opera 9.6closeLinux SamsungGT-I6410-Vodafonecloseclosecloseclose0.004 Detail
UserAgentStringCom
Opera 9.6closeLinux closecloseclosecloseclose0.05 Detail
WhatIsMyBrowserCom
Opera 9.6 Linux Samsungcloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0.41 Detail
WhichBrowser
2.0.10
Opera Mobile 9.6 LiMo Vodafone360 M1mobile:featureyescloseclose0.004 Detail
Woothee
v1.2.0
Opera 9.6closeclosecloseclosepcclosecloseclose0 Detail
Wurfl
1.6.4
Java Applet closeLinux SamsungGT-I6410Feature Phoneyesyescloseclose0.031 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 13:29:37 | by ThaDafinser