User agent detail

OneBrowser/3.1 (SAMSUNG-GT-S3653/S365MDDIJ1)
GeneralDeviceBot
ProviderBrowserEngineOSBrandModelTypeIs mobileIs touchIs botNameTypeParse timeActions
Source result (test suite)
browscap/browscap
/tests/fixtures/issues/issue-317.php
OneBrowser 3.1unknown unknownunknown SamsungGT-S3653Mobile Phoneyesyes Detail
Providers
BrowscapPhp
6012
OneBrowser 3.1WebKit SamsungGT-S3653Mobile Phoneyesyes0.012 Detail
DonatjUAParser
v0.5.0
OneBrowser 3.1closeclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
NeutrinoApiCom
OneBrowser 3.1closeTouchwiz SamsungCorbymobile-browseryescloseclose0.17802 Detail
PiwikDeviceDetector
3.5.2
ONE Browser 3.1WebKit SamsungGT-S3653smartphoneyes0.006 Detail
SinergiBrowserDetector
6.0.0
No result found
UAParser
v3.4.5
ONE Browser 3.1close SamsungGT-S3653closeclosecloseclose0.004 Detail
UserAgentStringCom
No result found
WhatIsMyBrowserCom
OneBrowser 3.1 Samsungcloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0.40104 Detail
WhichBrowser
2.0.10
OneBrowser 3.1 Touchwiz SamsungCorbymobile:featureyescloseclose0.004 Detail
Woothee
v1.2.0
No result found
Wurfl
1.6.4
Opera 11.10closeLinux armv6l Feature Phoneyescloseclose0.011 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 13:30:06 | by ThaDafinser