User agent detail

Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 4.0; ) Opera/UCWEB7.5.0.66/69/352, SAMSUNG-GT-C5212i/C5212iXEJH2 Profile/MIDP-2.0 Configuration
GeneralDeviceBot
ProviderBrowserEngineOSBrandModelTypeIs mobileIs touchIs botNameTypeParse timeActions
Source result (test suite)
ua-parser/uap-core
vendor/thadafinser/uap-core/tests/test_device.yaml
SamsungGT-C5212i Detail
Providers
BrowscapPhp
6012
No result found
DonatjUAParser
v0.5.0
Opera UCWEB7.5.0.66closeclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
NeutrinoApiCom
UC Browser close mobile-browseryescloseclose0.2531 Detail
PiwikDeviceDetector
3.5.2
UC Browser 7.5 SamsungGT-C5212ismartphoneyes0.006 Detail
SinergiBrowserDetector
6.0.0
Opera UCWEB7.5.0.66close closecloseclosecloseclose0.001 Detail
UAParser
v3.4.5
UC Browser 7.5.0close SamsungGT-C5212icloseclosecloseclose0.004 Detail
UserAgentStringCom
Opera close closecloseclosecloseclose0.07303 Detail
WhatIsMyBrowserCom
UC Browser 7.5.0.66 Samsungcloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0.41417 Detail
WhichBrowser
2.0.10
UC Browser 7.5Gecko SamsungGT-C5212imobile:featureyescloseclose0.011 Detail
Woothee
v1.2.0
Internet Explorer 4.0closecloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
Wurfl
1.6.4
Opera 11.10closeLinux armv6l Feature Phoneyescloseclose0.02 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 13:35:34 | by ThaDafinser