User agent detail

SAMSUNG-GT-C3595/C3595XAMG1 NetFront/4.2 Profile/MIDP-2.0 Configuration/CLDC-1.1
GeneralDeviceBot
ProviderBrowserEngineOSBrandModelTypeIs mobileIs touchIs botNameTypeParse timeActions
Source result (test suite)
ua-parser/uap-core
vendor/thadafinser/uap-core/tests/test_device.yaml
SamsungGT-C3595 Detail
Providers
BrowscapPhp
6012
NetFront 4.2NetFront JAVA Mobile Phoneyesyes0.05501 Detail
DonatjUAParser
v0.5.0
SAMSUNG-GT-C3595 C3595XAMG1closeclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
NeutrinoApiCom
NetFront 4.2closeJVM SamsungGT-C3595mobile-browseryescloseclose0.207 Detail
PiwikDeviceDetector
3.5.2
NetFront 4.2NetFront SamsungGT-C3595smartphoneyes0.006 Detail
SinergiBrowserDetector
6.0.0
No result found
UAParser
v3.4.5
NetFront 4.2close SamsungGT-C3595closeclosecloseclose0.012 Detail
UserAgentStringCom
NetFront 4.2close closecloseclosecloseclose0.055 Detail
WhatIsMyBrowserCom
NetFront Samsungcloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0.403 Detail
WhichBrowser
2.0.10
NetFront 4.2 SamsungGT-C3595mobile:featureyescloseclose0.011 Detail
Woothee
v1.2.0
No result found
Wurfl
1.6.4
NetFront 4.2close SamsungGT-C3595Feature Phoneyescloseclose0.04401 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 13:42:57 | by ThaDafinser