User agent detail

SAMSUNG-SGH-T330G NetFront/3.5 Profile/MIDP-2.0 Configuration/CLDC-1.1[TFXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX]
GeneralDeviceBot
ProviderBrowserEngineOSBrandModelTypeIs mobileIs touchIs botNameTypeParse timeActions
Source result (test suite)
ua-parser/uap-core
vendor/thadafinser/uap-core/tests/test_device.yaml
SamsungSGH-T330G Detail
Providers
BrowscapPhp
6012
NetFront 3.5NetFront Mobile Deviceyes0.018 Detail
DonatjUAParser
v0.5.0
SAMSUNG-SGH-T330G closeclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
NeutrinoApiCom
NetFront 3.5closeJVM SamsungSGH-T330Gmobile-browseryescloseclose0.20602 Detail
PiwikDeviceDetector
3.5.2
NetFront 3.5NetFront SamsungSGH-T330Gsmartphoneyes0.007 Detail
SinergiBrowserDetector
6.0.0
No result found
UAParser
v3.4.5
NetFront 3.5close SamsungSGH-T330Gcloseclosecloseclose0.009 Detail
UserAgentStringCom
NetFront 3.5close closecloseclosecloseclose0.08101 Detail
WhatIsMyBrowserCom
NetFront Samsungcloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0.44404 Detail
WhichBrowser
2.0.10
NetFront 3.5 SamsungSGH-T330G NetFrontmobile:featureyescloseclose0.016 Detail
Woothee
v1.2.0
No result found
Wurfl
1.6.4
NetFront 3.5close SamsungSGH-T330GFeature Phoneyescloseclose0.031 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 13:37:43 | by ThaDafinser