User agent detail

SAMSUNG-GT-C3322/1.0 Profile/MIDP-2.0 Configuration/CLDC-1.1 Untrusted/1.0
GeneralDeviceBot
ProviderBrowserEngineOSBrandModelTypeIs mobileIs touchIs botNameTypeParse timeActions
Test suite
WhichBrowser
v2.0.18
vendor/whichbrowser/parser/tests/data/mobile/os-feature.yaml
GT-C3322 Duosmobile:featureclosecloseclose0 Detail
Providers
BrowscapFull
6014
Samsung JAVA SamsungGT-C3322Mobile Phoneyes0 Detail
BrowscapLite
6014
No result found
BrowscapPhp
6014
Samsung closeJAVA closecloseMobile Phoneyesclose0.0312 Detail
DonatjUAParser
v0.5.1
SAMSUNG-GT-C3322 1.0closeclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
JenssegersAgent
v2.3.3
closeJavaOS closeclosecloseyescloseclose0.0156 Detail
NeutrinoApiCom

close SamsungGT-C3322 Duosmobile-browseryescloseclose0.2028 Detail
PiwikDeviceDetector
3.6.1
SamsungGT-C3322smartphoneyes0 Detail
SinergiBrowserDetector
6.0.1
No result found
UAParser
v3.4.5
close SamsungGT-C3322closeclosecloseclose0 Detail
UserAgentApiCom

closeclosecloseMobileclosecloseclose0.156 Detail
UserAgentStringCom

No result found
WhatIsMyBrowserCom

Samsungcloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0.234 Detail
WhichBrowser
v2.0.18
SamsungGT-C3322 Duosmobile:featureyescloseclose0 Detail
Woothee
v1.2.0
No result found
Wurfl
1.7.1.0
Java Applet close SamsungGT-C3322Feature Phoneyescloseclose0.0156 Detail
Zsxsoft
1.3
close SamsungGT-C3322closeclosecloseclosecloseclose0 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 07:52:28 | by ThaDafinser