User agent detail

Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows CE; IEMobile 6.8) SAMSUNG-SGH-i601/WM534
GeneralDeviceBot
ProviderBrowserEngineOSBrandModelTypeIs mobileIs touchIs botNameTypeParse timeActions
Source result (test suite)
ua-parser/uap-core
vendor/thadafinser/uap-core/tests/test_device.yaml
SamsungSGH-i601 Detail
Providers
BrowscapPhp
6012
IEMobile 6.8Trident 3.1WinCE Mobile Phoneyes0.016 Detail
DonatjUAParser
v0.5.0
IEMobile 6.8closeclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
NeutrinoApiCom
IE Mobile 6.8closeWindows SamsungSGH-i601mobile-browseryescloseclose0.18402 Detail
PiwikDeviceDetector
3.5.2
IE Mobile 6.8Trident Windows CE SamsungSGH-i601smartphoneyes0.009 Detail
SinergiBrowserDetector
6.0.0
Internet Explorer 6.0closeWindows CEclosecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
UAParser
v3.4.5
IE Mobile 6.8closeWindows CE SamsungSGH-i601closeclosecloseclose0.01 Detail
UserAgentStringCom
IE Mobile 6.8closeWindows CE closecloseclosecloseclose0.05601 Detail
WhatIsMyBrowserCom
Internet Explorer Mobile Windows Samsungcloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0.56206 Detail
WhichBrowser
2.0.10
Mobile Internet Explorer 6.0 Windows Mobile 6.0Samsungi601mobile:smartyescloseclose0.006 Detail
Woothee
v1.2.0
Internet Explorer 6.0closeclosecloseclosesmartphoneclosecloseclose0 Detail
Wurfl
1.6.4
IE Mobile closeWindows Mobile SamsungSGH-i601Feature Phoneyescloseclose0.03 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 13:40:41 | by ThaDafinser