User agent detail

SCH-W279/ POLARIS/6.2 (GUI; compatible; UP.Browser)
GeneralDeviceBot
ProviderBrowserEngineOSBrandModelTypeIs mobileIs touchIs botNameTypeParse timeActions
Source result (test suite)
whichbrowser/parser
/tests/data/mobile/browser-polaris.yaml
Polaris 6.2 SamsungPrimo Duosmobile:featureyes Detail
Providers
BrowscapPhp
6012
No result found
DonatjUAParser
v0.5.0
SCH-W279 closeclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
NeutrinoApiCom
Polaris 6.2closeJVM SamsungSCH W279mobile-browseryescloseclose0.19898 Detail
PiwikDeviceDetector
3.5.2
Openwave Mobile Browser SamsungSCH-W279smartphoneyes0.006 Detail
SinergiBrowserDetector
6.0.0
No result found
UAParser
v3.4.5
Polaris 6.2close closeclosecloseclose0.007 Detail
UserAgentStringCom
Polaris 6.2close closecloseclosecloseclose0.06299 Detail
WhatIsMyBrowserCom
Samsungcloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0.40696 Detail
WhichBrowser
2.0.10
Polaris 6.2 SamsungPrimo Duosmobile:featureyescloseclose0.004 Detail
Woothee
v1.2.0
No result found
Wurfl
1.6.4
close SamsungSCH W279Feature Phoneyescloseclose0.014 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 13:34:50 | by ThaDafinser