User agent detail

UCWEB/2.0 (Linux; U; Opera Mini/7.1.32052/30.3697; ru; QUMO_QUEST_450) U2/1.0.0 UCBrowser/9.9.1.554 Mobile
GeneralDeviceBot
ProviderBrowserEngineOSBrandModelTypeIs mobileIs touchIs botNameTypeParse timeActions
Source result (test suite)
browscap/browscap
/tests/fixtures/issues/issue-635.php
UC Browser 9.9Android 4.1unknown QumoQUEST 450Mobile Phoneyesyes Detail
Providers
BrowscapPhp
6012
UC Browser 9.9U2 Android 4.1QumoQUEST 450Mobile Phoneyesyes0.009 Detail
DonatjUAParser
v0.5.0
Opera Minicloseclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
NeutrinoApiCom
UC Browser closeLinux mobile-browseryescloseclose0.287 Detail
PiwikDeviceDetector
3.5.2
Opera Mini 7.1Presto GNU/Linux desktop0.01 Detail
SinergiBrowserDetector
6.0.0
Opera Mini 7.1.32052closeLinux closecloseyesclosecloseclose0 Detail
UAParser
v3.4.5
Opera Mini 7.1.32052closeLinux closeclosecloseclose0.006 Detail
UserAgentStringCom
Opera Mini 7.1.32052closeLinux closecloseclosecloseclose0.125 Detail
WhatIsMyBrowserCom
UC Browser 9.9.1.554 Linux closeclosecloseclosecloseclose0.421 Detail
WhichBrowser
2.0.10
UC Browser 9.9Gecko mobile:featureyescloseclose0.07101 Detail
Woothee
v1.2.0
Opera closeclosecloseclosepcclosecloseclose0 Detail
Wurfl
1.6.4
UC Browser 8closeAndroid 4.0Feature Phoneyescloseclose0.009 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 2016-02-13 13:25:52 | by ThaDafinser