User agent detail

SAMSUNG-SCH-M710/(null)ID4 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows CE; PPC) Opera 9.5 Presto/2.2.1
GeneralDeviceBot
ProviderBrowserEngineOSBrandModelTypeIs mobileIs touchIs botNameTypeParse timeActions
Source result (test suite)
ua-parser/uap-core
vendor/thadafinser/uap-core/tests/test_device.yaml
SamsungSCH-M710 Detail
Providers
BrowscapPhp
6012
No result found
DonatjUAParser
v0.5.0
Opera 9.5closeclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
NeutrinoApiCom
IE Mobile 6.0closeWindows GenericWindows Mobilemobile-browseryescloseclose0.187 Detail
PiwikDeviceDetector
3.5.2
Opera 9.5Presto Windows CE SamsungSCH-M710smartphoneyes0.006 Detail
SinergiBrowserDetector
6.0.0
Opera 2.2.1closeWindows CEclosecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
UAParser
v3.4.5
Opera 9.5closeWindows CE SamsungSCH-M710closeclosecloseclose0.002 Detail
UserAgentStringCom
Opera 9.5closeWindows CE closecloseclosecloseclose0.068 Detail
WhatIsMyBrowserCom
Opera 9.5Presto 2.2.1Windows closeclosecloseclosecloseclose0.405 Detail
WhichBrowser
2.0.10
Opera Mobile 9.5Presto 2.2.1Windows Mobile SamsungM710 T*OMNIA IImobile:smartyescloseclose0.004 Detail
Woothee
v1.2.0
Internet Explorer 6.0closeclosecloseclosesmartphoneclosecloseclose0.001 Detail
Wurfl
1.6.4
IE Mobile closeWindows Mobile Feature Phoneyescloseclose0.02001 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 13:41:32 | by ThaDafinser