User agent detail

SAMSUNG-PLSM520 AU-MIC-M520/20 MMP/20 PROFILE/MIDP-20 CONFIGURATION/CLDC-11 UNTRUSTED/10
GeneralDeviceBot
ProviderBrowserEngineOSBrandModelTypeIs mobileIs touchIs botNameTypeParse timeActions
Source result (test suite)
ua-parser/uap-core
vendor/thadafinser/uap-core/tests/test_device.yaml
SamsungPLSM520 Detail
Providers
BrowscapPhp
6012
Teleca-Obigo JAVA Mobile Phoneyes0.026 Detail
DonatjUAParser
v0.5.0
SAMSUNG-PLSM520 closeclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
NeutrinoApiCom
Obigo 20closeJVM mobile-browseryescloseclose0.21902 Detail
PiwikDeviceDetector
3.5.2
SamsungPLSM520smartphoneyes0.006 Detail
SinergiBrowserDetector
6.0.0
No result found
UAParser
v3.4.5
close SamsungPLSM520closeclosecloseclose0.009 Detail
UserAgentStringCom
No result found
WhatIsMyBrowserCom
No result found
WhichBrowser
2.0.10
SamsungPLSM520 AU-MIC-M520mobile:featureyescloseclose0.011 Detail
Woothee
v1.2.0
No result found
Wurfl
1.6.4
Teleca Obigo Q05Aclose 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 13:32:51 | by ThaDafinser