User agent detail

Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; SAMSUNG-SGH-i900/1.0 Opera 9.5; (null)) Opera 9.5
GeneralDeviceBot
ProviderBrowserEngineOSBrandModelTypeIs mobileIs touchIs botNameTypeParse timeActions
Source result (test suite)
ua-parser/uap-core
vendor/thadafinser/uap-core/tests/test_device.yaml
SamsungSGH-i900 Detail
Providers
BrowscapPhp
6012
IE 6.0Trident Windows DesktopDesktop0.036 Detail
DonatjUAParser
v0.5.0
Opera 9.5closeclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
NeutrinoApiCom
Opera 9.5close desktop-browsercloseclose0.19302 Detail
PiwikDeviceDetector
3.5.2
Opera 9.5Presto SamsungSGH-i900smartphoneyes0.006 Detail
SinergiBrowserDetector
6.0.0
Opera 9.5;close closecloseclosecloseclose0.001 Detail
UAParser
v3.4.5
Opera 9.5close SamsungSGH-i900closeclosecloseclose0.005 Detail
UserAgentStringCom
Opera 9.5close closecloseclosecloseclose0.10901 Detail
WhatIsMyBrowserCom
Opera 9.5 Samsungcloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0.40904 Detail
WhichBrowser
2.0.10
Opera Mobile 9.5 Windows Mobile Samsungi900 Omniamobile:smartyescloseclose0.007 Detail
Woothee
v1.2.0
Internet Explorer 6.0closecloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
Wurfl
1.6.4
Opera 11.10closeLinux armv6l Feature Phoneyescloseclose0.019 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 13:36:00 | by ThaDafinser