User agent detail

Opera/9.62 (X11;Linux i686; U; en) Presto/2.2.0/SAMSUNG-GT-I8320-Vodafone/
GeneralDeviceBot
ProviderBrowserEngineOSBrandModelTypeIs mobileIs touchIs botNameTypeParse timeActions
Source result (test suite)
ua-parser/uap-core
vendor/thadafinser/uap-core/tests/test_device.yaml
SamsungGT-I8320-Vodafone Detail
Providers
BrowscapPhp
6012
Opera 9.62Presto 2.0Linux Linux DesktopDesktop0.012 Detail
DonatjUAParser
v0.5.0
Opera 9.62closeclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
NeutrinoApiCom
Opera 9.62closeLinux desktop-browsercloseclose0.189 Detail
PiwikDeviceDetector
3.5.2
Opera 9.62Presto GNU/Linux SamsungH1smartphoneyes0.013 Detail
SinergiBrowserDetector
6.0.0
Opera 9.62closeLinux closecloseclosecloseclose0.001 Detail
UAParser
v3.4.5
Opera 9.62closeLinux SamsungGT-I8320-Vodafonecloseclosecloseclose0.003 Detail
UserAgentStringCom
Opera 9.62closeLinux closecloseclosecloseclose0.096 Detail
WhatIsMyBrowserCom
Opera 9.62Presto 2.2.0Linux Samsungcloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0.435 Detail
WhichBrowser
2.0.10
Opera Mobile 9.62Presto 2.2.0Linux Vodafone360 H1mobile:featureyescloseclose0.007 Detail
Woothee
v1.2.0
Opera 9.62closeclosecloseclosepcclosecloseclose0.001 Detail
Wurfl
1.6.4
Opera 11.10closeLinux armv6l Feature Phoneyescloseclose0.015 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 13:36:43 | by ThaDafinser