User agent detail

Samsung-SPHA900P AU-MIC-A900P/2.0 MMP/2.0 Profile/MIDP-2.0
GeneralDeviceBot
ProviderBrowserEngineOSBrandModelTypeIs mobileIs touchIs botNameTypeParse timeActions
Source result (test suite)
ua-parser/uap-core
vendor/thadafinser/uap-core/tests/test_device.yaml
SamsungSPHA900P Detail
Providers
BrowscapPhp
6012
Teleca-Obigo JAVA Mobile Phoneyes0.057 Detail
DonatjUAParser
v0.5.0
Samsung-SPHA900P closeclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
NeutrinoApiCom
Obigo 2.0closeJVM SamsungMM-A900 (SPH-A900)mobile-browseryescloseclose0.19104 Detail
PiwikDeviceDetector
3.5.2
SamsungSPHA900Psmartphoneyes0.007 Detail
SinergiBrowserDetector
6.0.0
No result found
UAParser
v3.4.5
close SamsungSPHA900Pcloseclosecloseclose0.014 Detail
UserAgentStringCom
No result found
WhatIsMyBrowserCom
No result found
WhichBrowser
2.0.10
SamsungSPHA900P AU-MIC-A900Pmobile:featureyescloseclose0.017 Detail
Woothee
v1.2.0
No result found
Wurfl
1.6.4
Java Applet close SamsungMM-A900 (SPH-A900)Feature Phoneyescloseclose0.042 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 13:38:06 | by ThaDafinser