User agent detail

MQQBrowser/Mini2.4 (SAMSUNG GT-C6112)
GeneralDeviceBot
ProviderBrowserEngineOSBrandModelTypeIs mobileIs touchIs botNameTypeParse timeActions
Source result (test suite)
whichbrowser/parser
/tests/data/mobile/os-feature.yaml
QQ Browser Mini 2.4 SamsungGT-C6112mobile:featureyes Detail
Providers
BrowscapPhp
6012
QQbrowser Mini 2.4WebKit JAVA Mobile Phoneyesyes0.007 Detail
DonatjUAParser
v0.5.0
MQQBrowser Mini2.4closeclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
NeutrinoApiCom
QQbrowser Mini2.4close mobile-browseryescloseclose0.19702 Detail
PiwikDeviceDetector
3.5.2
SamsungGT-C6112smartphoneyes0.009 Detail
SinergiBrowserDetector
6.0.0
No result found
UAParser
v3.4.5
QQ Browser Mini 2.4close SamsungGT-C6112closeclosecloseclose0.011 Detail
UserAgentStringCom
No result found
WhatIsMyBrowserCom
QQ Browser Samsungcloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0.40804 Detail
WhichBrowser
2.0.10
QQ Browser Mini 2.4 SamsungGT-C6112mobile:featureyescloseclose0.013 Detail
Woothee
v1.2.0
No result found
Wurfl
1.6.4
Opera 11.10closeLinux armv6l Feature Phoneyescloseclose0.007 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 13:31:43 | by ThaDafinser