User agent detail

Http://Atamg.wup.ru/SAMSUNG-GT-S5233T/S5233TXEJF1 SHP/VPP/R5 Jasmine/0.8 Qtv5.3 SMM-MMS/1.2.0 profile/MIDP-2.1 configuration/CLDC-1.1
GeneralDeviceBot
ProviderBrowserEngineOSBrandModelTypeIs mobileIs touchIs botNameTypeParse timeActions
Test suite
UAParser
v0.5.0.2
vendor/thadafinser/uap-core/tests/test_device.yaml
close SamsungGT-S5233Tclosecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
Providers
BrowscapFull
6014
No result found
BrowscapLite
6014
No result found
BrowscapPhp
6014
No result found
DonatjUAParser
v0.5.1
Http closeclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
JenssegersAgent
v2.3.3
closeJavaOS closeclosecloseyescloseclose0.001 Detail
NeutrinoApiCom

Dolfin 0.8closeTouchwiz 1.0SamsungStarmobile-browseryescloseclose0.21101 Detail
PiwikDeviceDetector
3.6.1
Jasmine 0.8 SamsungGT-S5233Tsmartphoneyes0.006 Detail
SinergiBrowserDetector
6.0.1
No result found
UAParser
v3.4.5
Jasmine 0.8close SamsungGT-S5233Tcloseclosecloseclose0.002 Detail
UserAgentApiCom

closeclosecloseMobileclosecloseclose0.17001 Detail
UserAgentStringCom

Jasmine 0.8close closecloseclosecloseclose0.062 Detail
WhatIsMyBrowserCom

Samsungcloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0.23401 Detail
WhichBrowser
v2.0.18
Dolfin 0.8 Touchwiz 1.0SamsungStarmobile:featureyescloseclose0.003 Detail
Woothee
v1.2.0
No result found
Wurfl
1.7.1.0
Java Applet close Feature Phoneyescloseclose0.016 Detail
Zsxsoft
1.3
Jasmine 0.8close SamsungGT-S5233Tcloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0.001 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 08:01:39 | by ThaDafinser