User agent detail

SAMSUNG GT-E2130 UCWEB/6.0,SAMSUNG-GT-E2130/E2130DDII1 Profile/MIDP-2.0 Configuration/CLDC-1.1 UP.Browser/6.2.3.3.c.1.102 (GUI) MMP/2.0 Untrusted/1.0
GeneralDeviceBot
ProviderBrowserEngineOSBrandModelTypeIs mobileIs touchIs botNameTypeParse timeActions
Source result (test suite)
ua-parser/uap-core
vendor/thadafinser/uap-core/tests/test_device.yaml
SamsungGT-E2130 Detail
Providers
BrowscapPhp
6012
Openwave Mobile Browser 6.2 JAVA Mobile Phoneyes0.025 Detail
DonatjUAParser
v0.5.0
SAMSUNG closeclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
NeutrinoApiCom
Openwave Mobile Browser 6.2.3.3.c.1.102close mobile-browseryescloseclose0.21202 Detail
PiwikDeviceDetector
3.5.2
UC Browser 6.0 SamsungGT-E2130smartphoneyes0.024 Detail
SinergiBrowserDetector
6.0.0
No result found
UAParser
v3.4.5
UP.Browser 6.2.3close SamsungGT-E2130closeclosecloseclose0.006 Detail
UserAgentStringCom
UC Browser 6.0close closecloseclosecloseclose0.06701 Detail
WhatIsMyBrowserCom
UC Browser 6.0 Samsungcloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0.40804 Detail
WhichBrowser
2.0.10
Openwave 6.2 SamsungGT-E2130 UCWEBmobile:featureyescloseclose0.042 Detail
Woothee
v1.2.0
No result found
Wurfl
1.6.4
close Feature Phoneyescloseclose0.016 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 13:30:34 | by ThaDafinser