User agent detail

Mozilla/5.0 (Linux; Tizen 2.2; SAMSUNG GT-I8805-ORANGE/DailyRedwoodLTEEUROPEN_20131104.001) AppleWebKit/537.3 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/2.2 Mobile Safari/537.3
GeneralDeviceBot
ProviderBrowserEngineOSBrandModelTypeIs mobileIs touchIs botNameTypeParse timeActions
Source result (test suite)
whichbrowser/parser
/tests/data/mobile/os-tizen.yaml
Samsung Browser Tizen 2.2Webkit 537.3Samsung"Redwood"mobile:smartyes Detail
Providers
BrowscapPhp
6012
Samsung WebView 2.2WebKit Tizen 2.2Mobile Phoneyesyes0.051 Detail
DonatjUAParser
v0.5.0
Safari 2.2closeclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
NeutrinoApiCom
Mobile Safari 2.2closeLinux mobile-browseryescloseclose0.18802 Detail
PiwikDeviceDetector
3.5.2
Mobile Safari 2.2WebKit Tizen 2.2SamsungGT-I8805-ORANGEsmartphoneyes0.006 Detail
SinergiBrowserDetector
6.0.0
Safari 2.2closeLinux closecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
UAParser
v3.4.5
Safari 2.2closeLinux SamsungGT-I8805-ORANGEcloseclosecloseclose0.003 Detail
UserAgentStringCom
Safari 2.2closeLinux closecloseclosecloseclose0.04901 Detail
WhatIsMyBrowserCom
WebKit 537.3Linux Samsungcloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0.40504 Detail
WhichBrowser
2.0.10
Samsung Browser Webkit 537.3Tizen 2.2Samsung"Redwood"mobile:smartyescloseclose0.003 Detail
Woothee
v1.2.0
Safari 2.2closeclosecloseclosepcclosecloseclose0.001 Detail
Wurfl
1.6.4
Safari 2.2closeLinux TizenFeature Phoneyesyescloseclose0.011 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 13:37:37 | by ThaDafinser