User agent detail

SAMSUNG-GT-C3322i Opera/9.80 (X11; Linux zvav; U; xx) Presto/2.8.119 Version/11.10
GeneralDeviceBot
ProviderBrowserEngineOSBrandModelTypeIs mobileIs touchIs botNameTypeParse timeActions
Source result (test suite)
whichbrowser/parser
/tests/data/mobile/browser-opera.yaml
Opera Mini Presto 2.8.119SamsungGT-C3322imobile:featureyes Detail
Providers
BrowscapPhp
6012
No result found
DonatjUAParser
v0.5.0
Opera 11.10closeclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
NeutrinoApiCom
Opera Mini close SamsungGT-C3322imobile-browseryescloseclose0.233 Detail
PiwikDeviceDetector
3.5.2
Opera 11.10Presto GNU/Linux SamsungGT-C3322ismartphoneyes0.006 Detail
SinergiBrowserDetector
6.0.0
Opera 11.10closeLinux closecloseclosecloseclose0.001 Detail
UAParser
v3.4.5
Opera 11.10closeLinux SamsungGT-C3322icloseclosecloseclose0.002 Detail
UserAgentStringCom
Opera 11.10closeLinux closecloseclosecloseclose0.138 Detail
WhatIsMyBrowserCom
Opera 11.10Presto 2.8.119Linux Samsungcloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0.414 Detail
WhichBrowser
2.0.10
Opera Mini Presto 2.8.119 SamsungGT-C3322imobile:featureyescloseclose0.011 Detail
Woothee
v1.2.0
Opera 11.10closeclosecloseclosepcclosecloseclose0 Detail
Wurfl
1.6.4
closeLinux SamsungGT-C3322iFeature Phoneyescloseclose0.01901 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 13:41:36 | by ThaDafinser