User agent detail

SAMSUNG-GT-E2200 Opera(J2ME/MIDP; Opera Mini; U; en)
GeneralDeviceBot
ProviderBrowserEngineOSBrandModelTypeIs mobileIs touchIs botNameTypeParse timeActions
Source result (test suite)
ua-parser/uap-core
vendor/thadafinser/uap-core/tests/test_device.yaml
SamsungGT-E2200 Detail
Providers
BrowscapPhp
6012
No result found
DonatjUAParser
v0.5.0
Opera Minicloseclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
NeutrinoApiCom
Opera Mini close SamsungGT-E2200 Opera(J2MEmobile-browseryescloseclose0.19902 Detail
PiwikDeviceDetector
3.5.2
SamsungGT-E2200smartphoneyes0.005 Detail
SinergiBrowserDetector
6.0.0
Opera Mini Mini;close closecloseyesclosecloseclose0.001 Detail
UAParser
v3.4.5
close SamsungGT-E2200closeclosecloseclose0.003 Detail
UserAgentStringCom
Opera Mini close closecloseclosecloseclose0.052 Detail
WhatIsMyBrowserCom
Opera Mini Samsungcloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0.41104 Detail
WhichBrowser
2.0.10
Opera Mini SamsungGT-E2200 Opera(J2MEmobile:featureyescloseclose0.019 Detail
Woothee
v1.2.0
Opera closecloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
Wurfl
1.6.4
Opera 11.10closeLinux armv6l Feature Phoneyescloseclose0.02 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 13:32:28 | by ThaDafinser