User agent detail

AnimalVoyage/1.18 pgid=f0923053f6bcb74e tag=f0923053f6bcb74e cv=1118011 hw=SAMSUNG GT-I9105P; s2vep; gzip
GeneralDeviceBot
ProviderBrowserEngineOSBrandModelTypeIs mobileIs touchIs botNameTypeParse timeActions
Source result (test suite)
ua-parser/uap-core
vendor/thadafinser/uap-core/tests/test_device.yaml
SamsungGT-I9105P Detail
Providers
BrowscapPhp
6012
No result found
DonatjUAParser
v0.5.0
AnimalVoyage 1.18closeclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
NeutrinoApiCom
close SamsungGT-I9105P; s2vep; gzipmobile-browseryescloseclose0.192 Detail
PiwikDeviceDetector
3.5.2
SamsungGALAXY S II Plussmartphoneyes0.007 Detail
SinergiBrowserDetector
6.0.0
No result found
UAParser
v3.4.5
close SamsungGT-I9105Pcloseclosecloseclose0.007 Detail
UserAgentStringCom
No result found
WhatIsMyBrowserCom
Samsungcloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0.449 Detail
WhichBrowser
2.0.10
SamsungGT-I9105P; s2vep; gzipmobile:featureyescloseclose0.012 Detail
Woothee
v1.2.0
No result found
Wurfl
1.6.4
Opera 11.10closeLinux armv6l Feature Phoneyescloseclose0.032 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 13:39:15 | by ThaDafinser