User agent detail

SAMSUNG-SGH-E250L/1.0 Profile/MIDP-2.0 Configuration/CLDC-1.1 UP.Browser/6.2.3.3.c.1.101 (GUI) MMP/2.0
GeneralDeviceBot
ProviderBrowserEngineOSBrandModelTypeIs mobileIs touchIs botNameTypeParse timeActions
Source result (test suite)
ua-parser/uap-core
vendor/thadafinser/uap-core/tests/test_device.yaml
SamsungSGH-E250L Detail
Providers
BrowscapPhp
6012
Openwave Mobile Browser 6.2 JAVA Mobile Phoneyes0.069 Detail
DonatjUAParser
v0.5.0
SAMSUNG-SGH-E250L 1.0closeclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
NeutrinoApiCom
Openwave Mobile Browser 6.2.3.3.c.1.101close SamsungSGH-E250mobile-browseryescloseclose0.202 Detail
PiwikDeviceDetector
3.5.2
Openwave Mobile Browser 6.2 SamsungSGH-E250Lsmartphoneyes0.006 Detail
SinergiBrowserDetector
6.0.0
No result found
UAParser
v3.4.5
UP.Browser 6.2.3close SamsungSGH-E250Lcloseclosecloseclose0.002 Detail
UserAgentStringCom
No result found
WhatIsMyBrowserCom
Openwave Mobile Browser 6.2.3.3.c.1.101 Samsungcloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0.402 Detail
WhichBrowser
2.0.10
Openwave 6.2 SamsungSGH-E250Lmobile:featureyescloseclose0.011 Detail
Woothee
v1.2.0
No result found
Wurfl
1.6.4
Java Applet close SamsungSGH-E250Feature Phoneyescloseclose0.033 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 13:39:21 | by ThaDafinser