User agent detail

SAMSUNG-GT-B7350/1.0 Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 4.01; Windows CE; PPC)/UCWEB8.2.0.116/31/999
GeneralDeviceBot
ProviderBrowserEngineOSBrandModelTypeIs mobileIs touchIs botNameTypeParse timeActions
Source result (test suite)
whichbrowser/parser
/tests/data/mobile/os-windowsmobile.yaml
UC Browser 8.2Windows Mobile Gecko SamsungB7350 OmniaPRO 4mobile:smartyes Detail
Providers
BrowscapPhp
6012
No result found
DonatjUAParser
v0.5.0
MSIE 4.01closeclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
NeutrinoApiCom
UC Browser closeWindows GenericWindows Mobilemobile-browseryescloseclose0.18402 Detail
PiwikDeviceDetector
3.5.2
UC Browser 8.2 Windows CE SamsungGT-B7350smartphoneyes0.007 Detail
SinergiBrowserDetector
6.0.0
Internet Explorer 4.01closeWindows CEclosecloseclosecloseclose0.001 Detail
UAParser
v3.4.5
UC Browser 8.2.0closeWindows CE SamsungGT-B7350closeclosecloseclose0.002 Detail
UserAgentStringCom
UC Browser 8.2.0.116closeWindows CE closecloseclosecloseclose0.046 Detail
WhatIsMyBrowserCom
UC Browser 8.2.0.116 Windows closeclosecloseclosecloseclose0.40604 Detail
WhichBrowser
2.0.10
UC Browser 8.2Gecko Windows Mobile SamsungB7350 OmniaPRO 4mobile:smartyescloseclose0.003 Detail
Woothee
v1.2.0
Internet Explorer 4.01closeclosecloseclosesmartphoneclosecloseclose0.001 Detail
Wurfl
1.6.4
IE Mobile closeWindows Mobile Feature Phoneyescloseclose0.012 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 13:33:34 | by ThaDafinser