User agent detail

SAMSUNG-SGH-L810-Vodafone/L810ACIB1 SHP/VPP/R5 Opera/9.5 Qtv5.3 SMM-MMS/1.2.0 profile/MIDP-2.0 configuration/CLDC-1.1
GeneralDeviceBot
ProviderBrowserEngineOSBrandModelTypeIs mobileIs touchIs botNameTypeParse timeActions
Source result (test suite)
ua-parser/uap-core
vendor/thadafinser/uap-core/tests/test_device.yaml
SamsungSGH-L810-Vodafone Detail
Providers
BrowscapPhp
6012
No result found
DonatjUAParser
v0.5.0
Opera 9.5closeclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
NeutrinoApiCom
Opera Mobile 9.5close SamsungSGH-L810mobile-browseryescloseclose0.19002 Detail
PiwikDeviceDetector
3.5.2
Opera 9.5Presto SamsungSGH-L810smartphoneyes0.006 Detail
SinergiBrowserDetector
6.0.0
Opera 9.5close closecloseclosecloseclose0.001 Detail
UAParser
v3.4.5
Opera 9.5close SamsungSGH-L810-Vodafonecloseclosecloseclose0.002 Detail
UserAgentStringCom
Opera 9.5close closecloseclosecloseclose0.05601 Detail
WhatIsMyBrowserCom
Opera 9.5 Samsungcloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0.41804 Detail
WhichBrowser
2.0.10
Opera Mobile 9.5 SamsungSGH-L810mobile:featureyescloseclose0.018 Detail
Woothee
v1.2.0
Opera 9.5closecloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0.001 Detail
Wurfl
1.6.4
Java Applet close SamsungSGH L810VFeature Phoneyescloseclose0.034 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 13:32:15 | by ThaDafinser