User agent detail

MQQBrowser/Mini2.4 (SAMSUNG-GT-E2252)
GeneralDeviceBot
ProviderBrowserEngineOSBrandModelTypeIs mobileIs touchIs botNameTypeParse timeActions
Source result (test suite)
browscap/browscap
/tests/fixtures/issues/issue-539.php
QQbrowser Mini 2.4JAVA unknownunknown SamsungGT-E2252Mobile Phoneyes Detail
Providers
BrowscapPhp
6012
QQbrowser Mini 2.4WebKit JAVA SamsungGT-E2252Mobile Phoneyes0.015 Detail
DonatjUAParser
v0.5.0
MQQBrowser Mini2.4closeclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
NeutrinoApiCom
QQbrowser Mini2.4close mobile-browseryescloseclose0.178 Detail
PiwikDeviceDetector
3.5.2
SamsungGT-E2252smartphoneyes0.004 Detail
SinergiBrowserDetector
6.0.0
No result found
UAParser
v3.4.5
QQ Browser Mini 2.4close SamsungGT-E2252closeclosecloseclose0.007 Detail
UserAgentStringCom
No result found
WhatIsMyBrowserCom
QQ Browser Samsungcloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0.408 Detail
WhichBrowser
2.0.10
QQ Browser Mini 2.4 SamsungMetro 2252mobile:featureyescloseclose0.006 Detail
Woothee
v1.2.0
No result found
Wurfl
1.6.4
Opera 11.10closeLinux armv6l Feature Phoneyescloseclose0.012 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 13:35:03 | by ThaDafinser