User agent detail

AnimalVoyage/1.18 pgid=f0923053f6bcb74e tag=f0923053f6bcb74e cv=1118011 hw=SAMSUNG GT-I9105P; s2vep; gzip
GeneralDeviceBot
ProviderBrowserEngineOSBrandModelTypeIs mobileIs touchIs botNameTypeParse timeActions
Test suite
UAParser
v0.5.0.2
vendor/thadafinser/uap-core/tests/test_device.yaml
close SamsungGT-I9105Pclosecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
Providers
BrowscapFull
6014
No result found
BrowscapLite
6014
No result found
BrowscapPhp
6014
No result found
DonatjUAParser
v0.5.1
AnimalVoyage 1.18closeclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
JenssegersAgent
v2.3.3
close closeclosecloseyescloseclose0.002 Detail
NeutrinoApiCom

close SamsungGT-I9105P; s2vep; gzipmobile-browseryescloseclose0.20901 Detail
PiwikDeviceDetector
3.6.1
SamsungGALAXY S II Plussmartphoneyes0.005 Detail
SinergiBrowserDetector
6.0.1
No result found
UAParser
v3.4.5
close SamsungGT-I9105Pcloseclosecloseclose0.002 Detail
UserAgentApiCom

No result found
UserAgentStringCom

No result found
WhatIsMyBrowserCom

Samsungcloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0.23801 Detail
WhichBrowser
v2.0.18
SamsungGT-I9105Pmobile:featureyescloseclose0.001 Detail
Woothee
v1.2.0
No result found
Wurfl
1.7.1.0
close Feature Phoneyescloseclose0.016 Detail
Zsxsoft
1.3
close SamsungI9105Pcloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0.001 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