User agent detail

SAMSUNG-SGH-i900/1.0 Opera 9.5
GeneralDeviceBot
ProviderBrowserEngineOSBrandModelTypeIs mobileIs touchIs botNameTypeParse timeActions
Source result (test suite)
whichbrowser/parser
/tests/data/mobile/os-windowsmobile.yaml
Opera Mobile 9.5Windows Mobile Samsungi900 Omniamobile:smartyes Detail
Providers
BrowscapPhp
6012
Opera Mobile 9.5Presto 2.2 SamsungSGH-I900Tabletyesyes0.013 Detail
DonatjUAParser
v0.5.0
Opera 9.5closeclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
NeutrinoApiCom
Opera Mobile 9.5closeWindows Mobile Samsungi900 Omniamobile-browseryescloseclose0.18706 Detail
PiwikDeviceDetector
3.5.2
Opera 9.5Presto SamsungSGH-i900smartphoneyes0.011 Detail
SinergiBrowserDetector
6.0.0
Opera 9.5close closecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
UAParser
v3.4.5
Opera 9.5close SamsungSGH-i900closeclosecloseclose0.01 Detail
UserAgentStringCom
Opera 9.5close closecloseclosecloseclose0.05802 Detail
WhatIsMyBrowserCom
Opera 9.5 Samsungcloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0.36711 Detail
WhichBrowser
2.0.10
Opera Mobile 9.5 Windows Mobile Samsungi900 Omniamobile:smartyescloseclose0.007 Detail
Woothee
v1.2.0
Opera 9.5closecloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0.001 Detail
Wurfl
1.6.4
close SamsungSGH i900Feature Phoneyesyescloseclose0.03 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 13:37:27 | by ThaDafinser