User agent detail

SAMSUNG-GT-S5230-Vodafone/S5230XFIJ2 SHP/VPP/R5 Jasmine/0.8 Nextreaming SMM-MMS/1.2.0 profile/MIDP-2.1 configuration/CLDC-1.1
GeneralDeviceBot
ProviderBrowserEngineOSBrandModelTypeIs mobileIs touchIs botNameTypeParse timeActions
Source result (test suite)
ua-parser/uap-core
vendor/thadafinser/uap-core/tests/test_device.yaml
SamsungGT-S5230-Vodafone Detail
Providers
BrowscapPhp
6012
Jasmine 0.8NetFront JAVA SamsungGT-S5230Mobile Phoneyes0.03 Detail
DonatjUAParser
v0.5.0
SAMSUNG-GT-S5230-Vodafone S5230XFIJ2closeclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
NeutrinoApiCom
Jasmine 0.8close mobile-browseryescloseclose0.18806 Detail
PiwikDeviceDetector
3.5.2
Jasmine 0.8 SamsungGT-S5230smartphoneyes0.007 Detail
SinergiBrowserDetector
6.0.0
No result found
UAParser
v3.4.5
Jasmine 0.8close SamsungGT-S5230-Vodafonecloseclosecloseclose0.008 Detail
UserAgentStringCom
Jasmine 0.8close closecloseclosecloseclose0.05102 Detail
WhatIsMyBrowserCom
Samsungcloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0.40412 Detail
WhichBrowser
2.0.10
Dolfin 0.8 Touchwiz 1.0SamsungStarmobile:featureyescloseclose0.004 Detail
Woothee
v1.2.0
SoftBank Mobile closeclosecloseclosemobilephoneclosecloseclose0 Detail
Wurfl
1.6.4
Opera 11.10closeLinux armv6l Feature Phoneyescloseclose0.016 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 13:37:30 | by ThaDafinser