User agent detail

Mozilla/4.0(compatible;Polaris 6.2;Brew 3.1.5;U;en)/400x240 Samsung SCH-U820
GeneralDeviceBot
ProviderBrowserEngineOSBrandModelTypeIs mobileIs touchIs botNameTypeParse timeActions
Source result (test suite)
browscap/browscap
/tests/fixtures/issues/issue-096.php
Polaris 6.2Brew 3.1unknown SamsungSCH-U820Mobile Phoneyesyes Detail
Providers
BrowscapPhp
6012
Polaris 6.2 Brew 3.1SamsungSCH-U820Mobile Phoneyesyes0.016 Detail
DonatjUAParser
v0.5.0
No result found
NeutrinoApiCom
Polaris 6.2closeBrew 3.1.5SamsungRealitymobile-browseryescloseclose0.19308 Detail
PiwikDeviceDetector
3.5.2
Polaris 6.2 Brew 3.1SamsungSCH-U820smartphoneyes0.006 Detail
SinergiBrowserDetector
6.0.0
Mozilla 4.0(compatible;Polarisclose closecloseclosecloseclose0.001 Detail
UAParser
v3.4.5
Polaris 6.2close SamsungSCH-U820closeclosecloseclose0.006 Detail
UserAgentStringCom
No result found
WhatIsMyBrowserCom
Netscape Navigator 4.0 Samsungcloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0.37315 Detail
WhichBrowser
2.0.10
Polaris 6.2 Brew 3.1.5SamsungRealitymobile:featureyescloseclose0.004 Detail
Woothee
v1.2.0
No result found
Wurfl
1.6.4
close SamsungSCH U820Feature Phoneyesyescloseclose0.025 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 13:35:35 | by ThaDafinser