User agent detail

UCWEB/2.0 (Linux; U; Adr 4.2.2; fa; GT-I9082) U2/1.0.0 UCBrowser/8.6.0.276 U2/1.0.0 Mobile
GeneralDeviceBot
ProviderBrowserEngineOSBrandModelTypeIs mobileIs touchIs botNameTypeParse timeActions
Source result (test suite)
browscap/browscap
/tests/fixtures/issues/issue-635.php
UC Browser 8.6Android 4.2unknown SamsungGalaxy Grand DuosMobile Phoneyesyes Detail
Providers
BrowscapPhp
6012
UC Browser 8.6U2 Android 4.2SamsungGalaxy Grand DuosMobile Phoneyesyes0.013 Detail
DonatjUAParser
v0.5.0
UCWEB 2.0closeclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
NeutrinoApiCom
UC Browser closeLinux SamsungGT-I9082mobile-browseryescloseclose0.256 Detail
PiwikDeviceDetector
3.5.2
UC Browser 8.6 Android 4.2SamsungGALAXY Grand Duosphabletyes0.008 Detail
SinergiBrowserDetector
6.0.0
closeLinux closecloseclosecloseclose0.001 Detail
UAParser
v3.4.5
UC Browser 8.6.0closeAndroid 4.2.2SamsungGT-I9082closeclosecloseclose0.005 Detail
UserAgentStringCom
UC Browser 2.0closeLinux closecloseclosecloseclose0.047 Detail
WhatIsMyBrowserCom
UC Browser 8.6.0.276 Linux Samsungcloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0.404 Detail
WhichBrowser
2.0.10
UC Browser 8.6Gecko Android 4.2.2SamsungGalaxy Grand Duosmobile:smartyescloseclose0.036 Detail
Woothee
v1.2.0
closeclosecloseclosepcclosecloseclose0 Detail
Wurfl
1.6.4
UC Browser 8closeAndroid 4.2SamsungGT-I9082Smartphoneyesyescloseclose0.017 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 13:27:06 | by ThaDafinser