User agent detail

Mozilla/5.0 (SCH-S559/S559DL12;U;REX/3.0;BREW/3.1.5;Profile/MIDP-2.1 Configuration/CLDC-1.1;240*320;CTC/2.0) POLARIS/6.15.WEB
GeneralDeviceBot
ProviderBrowserEngineOSBrandModelTypeIs mobileIs touchIs botNameTypeParse timeActions
Test suite
WhichBrowser
v2.0.18
vendor/whichbrowser/parser/tests/data/mobile/os-brew.yaml
Polaris 6.15 Brew 3.1.5SCH-S559mobile:featureclosecloseclose0 Detail
Providers
BrowscapFull
6014
No result found
BrowscapLite
6014
No result found
BrowscapPhp
6014
No result found
DonatjUAParser
v0.5.1
No result found
JenssegersAgent
v2.3.3
Mozilla closeJavaOS closeclosecloseyescloseclose0.003 Detail
NeutrinoApiCom

Polaris 6.15.closeJVM SamsungSCH-S559mobile-browseryescloseclose0.20401 Detail
PiwikDeviceDetector
3.6.1
Polaris 6.15 Brew 3.1SiemensS55smartphoneyes0.009 Detail
SinergiBrowserDetector
6.0.1
Mozilla 5.0close closecloseclosecloseclose0.001 Detail
UAParser
v3.4.5
Polaris 6.15closeBREW 3.1.5closeclosecloseclose0.006 Detail
UserAgentApiCom

Mozilla 5.0 closeclosecloseMobileclosecloseclose0.15701 Detail
UserAgentStringCom

Polaris 6.15close closecloseclosecloseclose0.081 Detail
WhatIsMyBrowserCom

5.0 Samsungcloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0.24201 Detail
WhichBrowser
v2.0.18
Polaris 6.15 Brew 3.1.5SamsungSCH-S559mobile:featureyescloseclose0.004 Detail
Woothee
v1.2.0
No result found
Wurfl
1.7.1.0
Java Applet close Feature Phoneyescloseclose0.016 Detail
Zsxsoft
1.3
Polaris 6.15.WEBclose SamsungS559closeclosecloseclosecloseclose0.001 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 08:12:06 | by ThaDafinser