User agent detail

SAMSUNG-GT-i8000H/1.0 (Windows CE; Opera Mobi; U; en) Opera 9.5
GeneralDeviceBot
ProviderBrowserEngineOSBrandModelTypeIs mobileIs touchIs botNameTypeParse timeActions
Source result (test suite)
ua-parser/uap-core
vendor/thadafinser/uap-core/tests/test_device.yaml
SamsungGT-i8000H Detail
Providers
BrowscapPhp
6012
Opera Mobile 9.5Presto 2.2 SamsungGT-I8000Mobile Phoneyes0.01801 Detail
DonatjUAParser
v0.5.0
Opera Mobicloseclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
NeutrinoApiCom
Opera Mobile 9.5closeWindows GenericWindows Mobilemobile-browseryescloseclose0.178 Detail
PiwikDeviceDetector
3.5.2
Opera 9.5Presto Windows CE SamsungOmnia IIsmartphoneyes0.007 Detail
SinergiBrowserDetector
6.0.0
Opera Mobi;closeWindows CEclosecloseclosecloseclose0.001 Detail
UAParser
v3.4.5
Opera Mobile 9.5closeWindows CE SamsungGT-i8000Hcloseclosecloseclose0.003 Detail
UserAgentStringCom
Opera Mobile closeWindows CE closecloseclosecloseclose0.054 Detail
WhatIsMyBrowserCom
Opera 9.5 Windows Samsungcloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0.419 Detail
WhichBrowser
2.0.10
Opera Mobile Windows Mobile SamsungI8000 Omnia IImobile:smartyescloseclose0.005 Detail
Woothee
v1.2.0
Opera 9.5closeclosecloseclosesmartphoneclosecloseclose0 Detail
Wurfl
1.6.4
IE Mobile closeWindows Mobile Feature Phoneyescloseclose0.015 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 13:41:11 | by ThaDafinser