User agent detail

SAMSUNG-SGH-A667/A667UCLD4; Mozilla/5.0 (Profile/MIDP-2.0 Configuration/CLDC-1.1; Opera Mini/att/4.2
GeneralDeviceBot
ProviderBrowserEngineOSBrandModelTypeIs mobileIs touchIs botNameTypeParse timeActions
Source result (test suite)
whichbrowser/parser
/tests/data/mobile/os-feature.yaml
Opera Mini 4.2 SamsungA667 Evergreenmobile:featureyes Detail
Providers
BrowscapPhp
6012
No result found
DonatjUAParser
v0.5.0
Opera Minicloseclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
NeutrinoApiCom
Opera Mini 4.2close SamsungA667 Evergreenmobile-browseryescloseclose0.18802 Detail
PiwikDeviceDetector
3.5.2
Opera Mini 4.2Presto SamsungSGH-A667smartphoneyes0.01 Detail
SinergiBrowserDetector
6.0.0
Opera Mini attclose closecloseyesclosecloseclose0.001 Detail
UAParser
v3.4.5
Opera Mini 4.2close SamsungSGH-A667closeclosecloseclose0.005 Detail
UserAgentStringCom
Opera Mini close closecloseclosecloseclose0.044 Detail
WhatIsMyBrowserCom
Opera Mini Samsungcloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0.41204 Detail
WhichBrowser
2.0.10
Opera Mini 4.2 SamsungA667 Evergreenmobile:featureyescloseclose0.005 Detail
Woothee
v1.2.0
Opera closecloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
Wurfl
1.6.4
Java Applet close SamsungSGH A667Feature Phoneyescloseclose0.029 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 13:30:12 | by ThaDafinser