User agent detail

Samsung-SCHR561 Infraware-Polaris/6.0 MMP/2.0
GeneralDeviceBot
ProviderBrowserEngineOSBrandModelTypeIs mobileIs touchIs botNameTypeParse timeActions
Test suite
UAParser
v0.5.0.2
vendor/thadafinser/uap-core/tests/test_device.yaml
close SamsungSCHR561closecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
Providers
BrowscapFull
6014
No result found
BrowscapLite
6014
No result found
BrowscapPhp
6014
No result found
DonatjUAParser
v0.5.1
Samsung-SCHR561 closeclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
JenssegersAgent
v2.3.3
close closeclosecloseyescloseclose0.001 Detail
NeutrinoApiCom

Polaris 6.0closeJVM SamsungSCH R561mobile-browseryescloseclose0.23201 Detail
PiwikDeviceDetector
3.6.1
SamsungSCHR561smartphoneyes0.006 Detail
SinergiBrowserDetector
6.0.1
No result found
UAParser
v3.4.5
Polaris 6.0close SamsungSCHR561closeclosecloseclose0.005 Detail
UserAgentApiCom

No result found
UserAgentStringCom

Polaris 6.0close closecloseclosecloseclose0.083 Detail
WhatIsMyBrowserCom

No result found
WhichBrowser
v2.0.18
Polaris 6.0 SamsungSCHR561 Infraware-Polarismobile:featureyescloseclose0.003 Detail
Woothee
v1.2.0
No result found
Wurfl
1.7.1.0
close SamsungSCH R561Feature Phoneyescloseclose0.019 Detail
Zsxsoft
1.3
Polaris 6.0close SamsungSCHR561closeclosecloseclosecloseclose0.001 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 07:56:04 | by ThaDafinser