User agent detail

MQQBrowser/Mini2.2 (SAMSUNG-GT-E2121B/E2121BXXKH1)
GeneralDeviceBot
ProviderBrowserEngineOSBrandModelTypeIs mobileIs touchIs botNameTypeParse timeActions
Source result (test suite)
ua-parser/uap-core
vendor/thadafinser/uap-core/tests/test_device.yaml
SamsungGT-E2121B Detail
Providers
BrowscapPhp
6012
No result found
DonatjUAParser
v0.5.0
MQQBrowser Mini2.2closeclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
NeutrinoApiCom
QQbrowser Mini2.2close mobile-browseryescloseclose0.19312 Detail
PiwikDeviceDetector
3.5.2
SamsungGT-E2121Bsmartphoneyes0.005 Detail
SinergiBrowserDetector
6.0.0
No result found
UAParser
v3.4.5
QQ Browser Mini 2.2close SamsungGT-E2121Bcloseclosecloseclose0.005 Detail
UserAgentStringCom
No result found
WhatIsMyBrowserCom
QQ Browser Samsungcloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0.41225 Detail
WhichBrowser
2.0.10
QQ Browser Mini 2.2 SamsungGT-E2121Bmobile:featureyescloseclose0.012 Detail
Woothee
v1.2.0
No result found
Wurfl
1.6.4
Opera 11.10closeLinux armv6l Feature Phoneyescloseclose0.017 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 13:37:10 | by ThaDafinser