User agent detail

SAMSUNG-SGH-E778/NetFront 3.2/WAP2.0 Profile/MIDP-2.0 Configuration/CLDC-1.1/*MDA0NDAxMDUwMDY4OTEx
GeneralDeviceBot
ProviderBrowserEngineOSBrandModelTypeIs mobileIs touchIs botNameTypeParse timeActions
Source result (test suite)
ua-parser/uap-core
vendor/thadafinser/uap-core/tests/test_device.yaml
SamsungSGH-E778 Detail
Providers
BrowscapPhp
6012
No result found
DonatjUAParser
v0.5.0
SAMSUNG-SGH-E778 NetFrontcloseclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
NeutrinoApiCom
NetFront 3.2close SamsungSGH-E778mobile-browseryescloseclose0.184 Detail
PiwikDeviceDetector
3.5.2
NetFront NetFront SamsungSGH-E778smartphoneyes0.005 Detail
SinergiBrowserDetector
6.0.0
No result found
UAParser
v3.4.5
close SamsungSGH-E778closeclosecloseclose0.013 Detail
UserAgentStringCom
NetFront 3.2close closecloseclosecloseclose0.112 Detail
WhatIsMyBrowserCom
NetFront Samsungcloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0.419 Detail
WhichBrowser
2.0.10
NetFront 3.2 SamsungSGH-E778mobile:featureyescloseclose0.011 Detail
Woothee
v1.2.0
No result found
Wurfl
1.6.4
Opera 11.10closeLinux armv6l Feature Phoneyescloseclose0.021 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 13:34:56 | by ThaDafinser