User agent detail

SAMSUNG-GT-E3309T Opera/9.80 (J2ME/MIDP; Opera Mini/4.4.34189/34.1016; U; en) Presto/2.8.119 Version/11.10
GeneralDeviceBot
ProviderBrowserEngineOSBrandModelTypeIs mobileIs touchIs botNameTypeParse timeActions
Source result (test suite)
browscap/browscap
/tests/fixtures/issues/issue-096.php
Opera Mini 4.4JAVA unknown2.2 SamsungGT-E3309TMobile Phoneyes Detail
Providers
BrowscapPhp
6012
Opera Mini 4.4Presto 2.2JAVA SamsungGT-E3309TMobile Phoneyes0.011 Detail
DonatjUAParser
v0.5.0
Opera 11.10closeclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
NeutrinoApiCom
Opera Mini 4.4.34189closeJVM mobile-browseryescloseclose0.19802 Detail
PiwikDeviceDetector
3.5.2
Opera Mini 4.4Presto SamsungGT-E3309Tsmartphoneyes0.006 Detail
SinergiBrowserDetector
6.0.0
Opera Mini 4.4.34189close closecloseyesclosecloseclose0.001 Detail
UAParser
v3.4.5
Opera Mini 4.4.34189close SamsungGT-E3309Tcloseclosecloseclose0.002 Detail
UserAgentStringCom
Opera Mini 4.4.34189close closecloseclosecloseclose0.06301 Detail
WhatIsMyBrowserCom
Opera Mini 4.4.34189Presto 2.8.119 Samsungcloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0.40604 Detail
WhichBrowser
2.0.10
Opera Mini 4.4Presto 2.8.119 SamsungGT-E3309Tmobile:featureyescloseclose0.011 Detail
Woothee
v1.2.0
Opera 11.10closecloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
Wurfl
1.6.4
Opera 11.10closeLinux armv6l Feature Phoneyescloseclose0.01 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 13:34:30 | by ThaDafinser