User agent detail

SAMSUNG-GT-C3322i Opera/9.80 (J2ME/MIDP; Opera Mini/7.1.33886/34.1499; U; uk) Presto/2.8.119 Version/11.10
GeneralDeviceBot
ProviderBrowserEngineOSBrandModelTypeIs mobileIs touchIs botNameTypeParse timeActions
Source result (test suite)
ua-parser/uap-core
vendor/thadafinser/uap-core/tests/test_device.yaml
SamsungGT-C3322i Detail
Providers
BrowscapPhp
6012
Opera Mini 7.1Presto 2.2JAVA SamsungMobile Deviceyes0.013 Detail
DonatjUAParser
v0.5.0
Opera 11.10closeclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
NeutrinoApiCom
Opera Mini 7.1.33886closeJVM SamsungGT-C3322imobile-browseryescloseclose0.20702 Detail
PiwikDeviceDetector
3.5.2
Opera Mini 7.1Presto SamsungGT-C3322ismartphoneyes0.008 Detail
SinergiBrowserDetector
6.0.0
Opera Mini 7.1.33886close closecloseyesclosecloseclose0.001 Detail
UAParser
v3.4.5
Opera Mini 7.1.33886close SamsungGT-C3322icloseclosecloseclose0.004 Detail
UserAgentStringCom
Opera Mini 7.1.33886close closecloseclosecloseclose0.051 Detail
WhatIsMyBrowserCom
Opera Mini 7.1.33886Presto 2.8.119 Samsungcloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0.41004 Detail
WhichBrowser
2.0.10
Opera Mini 7.1Presto 2.8.119 SamsungGT-C3322imobile:featureyescloseclose0.017 Detail
Woothee
v1.2.0
Opera 11.10closecloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
Wurfl
1.6.4
closeLinux SamsungGT-C3322iFeature Phoneyescloseclose0.023 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 13:33:39 | by ThaDafinser