User agent detail

SAMSUNG-SGH-E628/TSS 2.5.0/WAP2.0 Profile/MIDP-2.0 Configuration/CLDC-1.0/*MDAwMDAwMDAwMDAwMDA
GeneralDeviceBot
ProviderBrowserEngineOSBrandModelTypeIs mobileIs touchIs botNameTypeParse timeActions
Source result (test suite)
ua-parser/uap-core
vendor/thadafinser/uap-core/tests/test_device.yaml
SamsungSGH-E628 Detail
Providers
BrowscapPhp
6012
No result found
DonatjUAParser
v0.5.0
SAMSUNG-SGH-E628 TSScloseclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0.001 Detail
NeutrinoApiCom
close SamsungSGH-E628mobile-browseryescloseclose0.19 Detail
PiwikDeviceDetector
3.5.2
SamsungSGH-E628smartphoneyes0.006 Detail
SinergiBrowserDetector
6.0.0
No result found
UAParser
v3.4.5
close SamsungSGH-E628closeclosecloseclose0.008 Detail
UserAgentStringCom
No result found
WhatIsMyBrowserCom
Samsungcloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0.41 Detail
WhichBrowser
2.0.10
SamsungSGH-E628mobile:featureyescloseclose0.01 Detail
Woothee
v1.2.0
No result found
Wurfl
1.6.4
Opera 11.10closeLinux armv6l Feature Phoneyescloseclose0.016 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 13:35:17 | by ThaDafinser