User agent detail

iBrowser/Mini2.8 (SAMSUNG-GT-S5260/S5260XXKC4)
GeneralDeviceBot
ProviderBrowserEngineOSBrandModelTypeIs mobileIs touchIs botNameTypeParse timeActions
Source result (test suite)
whichbrowser/parser
/tests/data/mobile/browser-ibrowser.yaml
iBrowser Mini 2.8Touchwiz SamsungStar IImobile:featureyes Detail
Providers
BrowscapPhp
6012
iBrowser 2.8WebKit Mobile Phoneyesyes0.007 Detail
DonatjUAParser
v0.5.0
iBrowser Mini2.8closeclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
NeutrinoApiCom
IBrowse close desktop-browsercloseclose0.20002 Detail
PiwikDeviceDetector
3.5.2
IBrowse SamsungGT-S5260smartphoneyes0.008 Detail
SinergiBrowserDetector
6.0.0
No result found
UAParser
v3.4.5
iBrowser Mini 2.8close SamsungGT-S5260closeclosecloseclose0.001 Detail
UserAgentStringCom
No result found
WhatIsMyBrowserCom
Samsungcloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0.40904 Detail
WhichBrowser
2.0.10
iBrowser Mini 2.8 Touchwiz SamsungStar IImobile:featureyescloseclose0.005 Detail
Woothee
v1.2.0
No result found
Wurfl
1.6.4
Opera 11.10closeLinux armv6l Feature Phoneyescloseclose0.008 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 13:34:21 | by ThaDafinser