User agent detail

Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows CE; IEMobile 7.6) Samsung-SPHI325 320x240
GeneralDeviceBot
ProviderBrowserEngineOSBrandModelTypeIs mobileIs touchIs botNameTypeParse timeActions
Source result (test suite)
ua-parser/uap-core
vendor/thadafinser/uap-core/tests/test_device.yaml
SamsungSPHI325 Detail
Providers
BrowscapPhp
6012
IEMobile 7.6Trident 3.1WinCE Mobile Phoneyes0.018 Detail
DonatjUAParser
v0.5.0
IEMobile 7.6closeclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
NeutrinoApiCom
IE Mobile 7.6closeWindows GenericWindows Mobilemobile-browseryescloseclose0.188 Detail
PiwikDeviceDetector
3.5.2
IE Mobile 7.6Trident Windows CE SamsungSPHI325smartphoneyes0.006 Detail
SinergiBrowserDetector
6.0.0
Internet Explorer 6.0closeWindows CEclosecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
UAParser
v3.4.5
IE Mobile 7.6closeWindows CE SamsungSPHI325closeclosecloseclose0.002 Detail
UserAgentStringCom
IE Mobile 7.6closeWindows CE closecloseclosecloseclose0.047 Detail
WhatIsMyBrowserCom
Internet Explorer Mobile Windows closeclosecloseclosecloseclose0.418 Detail
WhichBrowser
2.0.10
Mobile Internet Explorer 6.0 Windows Mobile 6.1Samsungi325 Acemobile:smartyescloseclose0.007 Detail
Woothee
v1.2.0
Internet Explorer 6.0closeclosecloseclosesmartphoneclosecloseclose0.001 Detail
Wurfl
1.6.4
IE Mobile closeWindows Mobile SamsungSGH i900Feature Phoneyesyescloseclose0.032 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 13:29:46 | by ThaDafinser