User agent detail

SCH-S239/ POLARIS/6.15 (GUI; compatible; UP.Browser)
GeneralDeviceBot
ProviderBrowserEngineOSBrandModelTypeIs mobileIs touchIs botNameTypeParse timeActions
Test suite
WhichBrowser
v2.0.18
vendor/whichbrowser/parser/tests/data/mobile/browser-polaris.yaml
Polaris 6.15 SCH-S239mobile:featureclosecloseclose0 Detail
Providers
BrowscapFull
6014
No result found
BrowscapLite
6014
No result found
BrowscapPhp
6014
No result found
DonatjUAParser
v0.5.1
SCH-S239 closeclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
JenssegersAgent
v2.3.3
close closeclosecloseyescloseclose0.001 Detail
NeutrinoApiCom

Polaris 6.15closeJVM SamsungSCH S239mobile-browseryescloseclose0.20601 Detail
PiwikDeviceDetector
3.6.1
Openwave Mobile Browser SamsungSCH-S239smartphoneyes0.005 Detail
SinergiBrowserDetector
6.0.1
No result found
UAParser
v3.4.5
Polaris 6.15close closeclosecloseclose0.004 Detail
UserAgentApiCom

No result found
UserAgentStringCom

Polaris 6.15close closecloseclosecloseclose0.09901 Detail
WhatIsMyBrowserCom

Samsungcloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0.22701 Detail
WhichBrowser
v2.0.18
Polaris 6.15 SamsungSCH-S239mobile:featureyescloseclose0.003 Detail
Woothee
v1.2.0
No result found
Wurfl
1.7.1.0
close SamsungSCH S239Feature Phoneyescloseclose0.019 Detail
Zsxsoft
1.3
Polaris 6.15close SamsungS239closeclosecloseclosecloseclose0.001 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 08:12:24 | by ThaDafinser