User agent detail

SAMSUNG-GT-S5230/S5230RFJK1 SHP/VPP/R5 Jasmine/0.8 Nextreaming SMM-MMS/1.2.0 profile/MIDP-2.1 configuration/CLDC-1.1
GeneralDeviceBot
ProviderBrowserEngineOSBrandModelTypeIs mobileIs touchIs botNameTypeParse timeActions
Source result (test suite)
browscap/browscap
/tests/fixtures/issues/issue-436.php
Jasmine 0.8JAVA unknownunknown SamsungGT-S5230Mobile Phoneyes Detail
Providers
BrowscapPhp
6012
Jasmine 0.8NetFront JAVA SamsungGT-S5230Mobile Phoneyes0.033 Detail
DonatjUAParser
v0.5.0
SAMSUNG-GT-S5230 S5230RFJK1closeclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
NeutrinoApiCom
Jasmine 0.8close SamsungGT-S5230mobile-browseryescloseclose0.75396 Detail
PiwikDeviceDetector
3.5.2
Jasmine 0.8 SamsungGT-S5230smartphoneyes0.007 Detail
SinergiBrowserDetector
6.0.0
No result found
UAParser
v3.4.5
Jasmine 0.8close SamsungGT-S5230closeclosecloseclose0.012 Detail
UserAgentStringCom
Jasmine 0.8close closecloseclosecloseclose0.27226 Detail
WhatIsMyBrowserCom
Samsungcloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0.98832 Detail
WhichBrowser
2.0.10
Dolfin 0.8 Touchwiz 1.0SamsungStarmobile:featureyescloseclose0.004 Detail
Woothee
v1.2.0
No result found
Wurfl
1.6.4
Java Applet close SamsungGT-S5230Feature Phoneyesyescloseclose0.022 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 13:35:23 | by ThaDafinser