User agent detail

Mozilla/5.0 (Linux; Tizen 2.3; SAMSUNG SM-Z130H) AppleWebKit/537.3 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/2.3 Mobile Safari/537.3
GeneralDeviceBot
ProviderBrowserEngineOSBrandModelTypeIs mobileIs touchIs botNameTypeParse timeActions
Source result (test suite)
browscap/browscap
/tests/fixtures/issues/issue-681.php
Samsung WebView 2.3Tizen 2.3unknown SamsungZ1Mobile Phoneyesyes Detail
Providers
BrowscapPhp
6012
Samsung WebView 2.3WebKit Tizen 2.3SamsungZ1Mobile Phoneyesyes0.014 Detail
DonatjUAParser
v0.5.0
Safari 2.3closeclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
NeutrinoApiCom
Mobile Safari 2.3closeLinux mobile-browseryescloseclose0.195 Detail
PiwikDeviceDetector
3.5.2
Mobile Safari 2.3WebKit Tizen 2.3SamsungSM-Z130Hsmartphoneyes0.006 Detail
SinergiBrowserDetector
6.0.0
Safari 2.3closeLinux closecloseclosecloseclose0.002 Detail
UAParser
v3.4.5
Safari 2.3closeLinux SamsungSM-Z130Hcloseclosecloseclose0.007 Detail
UserAgentStringCom
Safari 2.3closeLinux closecloseclosecloseclose0.061 Detail
WhatIsMyBrowserCom
WebKit 537.3Linux Samsungcloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0.426 Detail
WhichBrowser
2.0.10
Samsung Browser Webkit 537.3Tizen 2.3SamsungZ1mobile:smartyescloseclose0.005 Detail
Woothee
v1.2.0
Safari 2.3closeclosecloseclosepcclosecloseclose0.001 Detail
Wurfl
1.6.4
closeLinux SamsungSM-Z130HFeature Phoneyesyescloseclose0.013 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 13:36:55 | by ThaDafinser