User agent detail

MQQBrowser/Mini2.2 (SAMSUNG-GT-E2652)
GeneralDeviceBot
ProviderBrowserEngineOSBrandModelTypeIs mobileIs touchIs botNameTypeParse timeActions
Test suite
UAParser
v0.5.0.2
vendor/thadafinser/uap-core/tests/test_device.yaml
close SamsungGT-E2652closecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
Providers
BrowscapFull
6014
No result found
BrowscapLite
6014
No result found
BrowscapPhp
6014
No result found
DonatjUAParser
v0.5.1
MQQBrowser Mini2.2closeclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
JenssegersAgent
v2.3.3
close closeclosecloseyescloseclose0 Detail
NeutrinoApiCom

QQbrowser Mini2.2close SamsungChamp Duosmobile-browseryescloseclose0.2184 Detail
PiwikDeviceDetector
3.6.1
QQ Browser 2.2 SamsungGT-E2652smartphoneyes0 Detail
SinergiBrowserDetector
6.0.1
No result found
UAParser
v3.4.5
QQ Browser Mini 2.2close SamsungGT-E2652closeclosecloseclose0 Detail
UserAgentApiCom

No result found
UserAgentStringCom

No result found
WhatIsMyBrowserCom

QQ Browser Samsungcloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0.3432 Detail
WhichBrowser
v2.0.18
QQ Browser Mini 2.2 Touchwiz SamsungChamp Duosmobile:featureyescloseclose0.0156 Detail
Woothee
v1.2.0
No result found
Wurfl
1.7.1.0
close Feature Phoneyescloseclose0.0156 Detail
Zsxsoft
1.3
MQQBrowser Mini2.2close SamsungGT-E2652closeclosecloseclosecloseclose0 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 2016-05-10 07:51:19 | by ThaDafinser