User agent detail

SAMSUNG-SGH-A897/A897UCJC1; Mozilla/5.0 (Profile/MIDP-2.0 Configuration/CLDC-1.1; Opera Mini/att/4.2.15304; U; fr-US) Opera 9.50
GeneralDeviceBot
ProviderBrowserEngineOSBrandModelTypeIs mobileIs touchIs botNameTypeParse timeActions
Source result (test suite)
ua-parser/uap-core
vendor/thadafinser/uap-core/tests/test_ua.yaml
Opera Mini 4.2.15304 Detail
Providers
BrowscapPhp
6012
Opera Mini 4.2Presto 2.2JAVA Mobile Deviceyes0.11 Detail
DonatjUAParser
v0.5.0
Opera Minicloseclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
NeutrinoApiCom
Opera 9.50close desktop-browsercloseclose0.19802 Detail
PiwikDeviceDetector
3.5.2
Opera Mini 4.2Presto SamsungSGH-A897smartphoneyes0.006 Detail
SinergiBrowserDetector
6.0.0
Opera Mini attclose closecloseyesclosecloseclose0.001 Detail
UAParser
v3.4.5
Opera Mini 4.2.15304close SamsungSGH-A897closeclosecloseclose0.007 Detail
UserAgentStringCom
Opera Mini close closecloseclosecloseclose0.11001 Detail
WhatIsMyBrowserCom
Opera Mini Samsungcloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0.41104 Detail
WhichBrowser
2.0.10
Opera Mini 4.2 SamsungSGH-A897mobile:featureyescloseclose0.011 Detail
Woothee
v1.2.0
Opera 9.50closecloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0.001 Detail
Wurfl
1.6.4
close SamsungSGH-A897Feature Phoneyescloseclose0.031 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 13:36:05 | by ThaDafinser