User agent detail

Opera/9.5 (Windows NT 5.1; U; xx) SAMSUNG-GT-i8000
GeneralDeviceBot
ProviderBrowserEngineOSBrandModelTypeIs mobileIs touchIs botNameTypeParse timeActions
Source result (test suite)
whichbrowser/parser
/tests/data/mobile/os-windowsmobile.yaml
Opera Mobile 9.5Windows Mobile SamsungI8000 Omnia IImobile:smartyes Detail
Providers
BrowscapPhp
6012
Opera WinXP 5.1Windows DesktopDesktop0.051 Detail
DonatjUAParser
v0.5.0
Opera 9.5closeclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
NeutrinoApiCom
Opera 9.5closeWindows 5.1desktop-browsercloseclose0.18002 Detail
PiwikDeviceDetector
3.5.2
Opera 9.5Presto Windows XPSamsungOmnia IIsmartphoneyes0.005 Detail
SinergiBrowserDetector
6.0.0
Opera 9.5closeWindows XPclosecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
UAParser
v3.4.5
Opera 9.5closeWindows XP SamsungGT-i8000closeclosecloseclose0.002 Detail
UserAgentStringCom
Opera 9.5closeWindows XP closecloseclosecloseclose0.05501 Detail
WhatIsMyBrowserCom
Opera 9.5 Windows Windows NT 5.1Samsungcloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0.40904 Detail
WhichBrowser
2.0.10
Opera Mobile 9.5 Windows Mobile SamsungI8000 Omnia IImobile:smartyescloseclose0.004 Detail
Woothee
v1.2.0
Opera 9.5closeclosecloseclosepcclosecloseclose0.001 Detail
Wurfl
1.6.4
Opera 9.5closeWindows XPSamsungGT i8000Feature Phoneyesyescloseclose0.016 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 13:40:42 | by ThaDafinser