User agent detail

SAMSUNG-GT-C3322/1.0 Profile/MIDP-2.0 Configuration/CLDC-1.1 Untrusted/1.0
GeneralDeviceBot
ProviderBrowserEngineOSBrandModelTypeIs mobileIs touchIs botNameTypeParse timeActions
Source result (test suite)
whichbrowser/parser
/tests/data/mobile/os-feature.yaml
SamsungGT-C3322 Duosmobile:featureyes Detail
Providers
BrowscapPhp
6012
Samsung JAVA SamsungGT-C3322Mobile Phoneyes0.008 Detail
DonatjUAParser
v0.5.0
SAMSUNG-GT-C3322 1.0closeclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0.001 Detail
NeutrinoApiCom
close SamsungGT-C3322 Duosmobile-browseryescloseclose0.18504 Detail
PiwikDeviceDetector
3.5.2
SamsungGT-C3322smartphoneyes0.005 Detail
SinergiBrowserDetector
6.0.0
No result found
UAParser
v3.4.5
close SamsungGT-C3322closeclosecloseclose0.002 Detail
UserAgentStringCom
No result found
WhatIsMyBrowserCom
Samsungcloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0.40608 Detail
WhichBrowser
2.0.10
SamsungGT-C3322 Duosmobile:featureyescloseclose0.003 Detail
Woothee
v1.2.0
No result found
Wurfl
1.6.4
NetFront 4.1close SamsungGT-C3322Feature Phoneyescloseclose0.012 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 13:38:02 | by ThaDafinser