User agent detail

MOZILLA40 (COMPATIBLE MSIE 60 WINDOWS CE IEMOBILE 612) SAMSUNG-SGH-I780
GeneralDeviceBot
ProviderBrowserEngineOSBrandModelTypeIs mobileIs touchIs botNameTypeParse timeActions
Source result (test suite)
ua-parser/uap-core
vendor/thadafinser/uap-core/tests/test_device.yaml
SamsungSGH-I780 Detail
Providers
BrowscapPhp
6012
No result found
DonatjUAParser
v0.5.0
Edge 612closeclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0.002 Detail
NeutrinoApiCom
IE Mobile 612closeWindows mobile-browseryescloseclose0.19602 Detail
PiwikDeviceDetector
3.5.2
IE Mobile 612Trident Windows CE SamsungSGH-I780smartphoneyes0.007 Detail
SinergiBrowserDetector
6.0.0
Internet Explorer 60closeWindows CEclosecloseclosecloseclose0.001 Detail
UAParser
v3.4.5
close SamsungSGH-I780closeclosecloseclose0.015 Detail
UserAgentStringCom
IE Mobile close closecloseclosecloseclose0.05601 Detail
WhatIsMyBrowserCom
Internet Explorer Mobile Windows Samsungcloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0.40704 Detail
WhichBrowser
2.0.10
Mobile Internet Explorer 60 Windows Mobile Samsungi780 Miragemobile:smartyescloseclose0.007 Detail
Woothee
v1.2.0
No result found
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 13:34:22 | by ThaDafinser