User agent detail

SAMSUNG-SGH-E356
GeneralDeviceBot
ProviderBrowserEngineOSBrandModelTypeIs mobileIs touchIs botNameTypeParse timeActions
Test suite
UAParser
v0.5.0.2
vendor/thadafinser/uap-core/tests/test_device.yaml
close SamsungSGH-E356closecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
Providers
BrowscapFull
6014
No result found
BrowscapLite
6014
No result found
BrowscapPhp
6014
No result found
DonatjUAParser
v0.5.1
SAMSUNG-SGH-E356 closeclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
JenssegersAgent
v2.3.3
close closeclosecloseyescloseclose0.002 Detail
NeutrinoApiCom

close SamsungSGH-E356mobile-browseryescloseclose0.20901 Detail
PiwikDeviceDetector
3.6.1
SamsungSGH-E356smartphoneyes0.005 Detail
SinergiBrowserDetector
6.0.1
No result found
UAParser
v3.4.5
close SamsungSGH-E356closeclosecloseclose0.004 Detail
UserAgentApiCom

No result found
UserAgentStringCom

No result found
WhatIsMyBrowserCom

Samsungcloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0.41902 Detail
WhichBrowser
v2.0.18
SamsungSGH-E356mobile:featureyescloseclose0.003 Detail
Woothee
v1.2.0
No result found
Wurfl
1.7.1.0
close SamsungSGH-E356Feature Phoneyescloseclose0.019 Detail
Zsxsoft
1.3
close SamsungSGH-E356closeclosecloseclosecloseclose0.001 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 08:00:27 | by ThaDafinser