User agent detail

UCWEB/2.0(Linux; U; Opera Mini/7.1.32052/30.3697; fr-fr; MB525 Build/JRDNEM_U3_2.24.0) U2/1.0.0 UCBrowser/9.5.0.360 Mobile
GeneralDeviceBot
ProviderBrowserEngineOSBrandModelTypeIs mobileIs touchIs botNameTypeParse timeActions
Source result (test suite)
browscap/browscap
/tests/fixtures/issues/issue-378.php
UC Browser 9.5Android 4.0unknown MotorolaDEFYMobile Phoneyesyes Detail
Providers
BrowscapPhp
6012
UC Browser 9.5U2 Android 4.0MotorolaDEFYMobile Phoneyesyes0.006 Detail
DonatjUAParser
v0.5.0
Opera Minicloseclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
NeutrinoApiCom
UC Browser closeLinux mobile-browseryescloseclose0.26703 Detail
PiwikDeviceDetector
3.5.2
Opera Mini 7.1Presto GNU/Linux MotorolaMB525smartphoneyes0.007 Detail
SinergiBrowserDetector
6.0.0
Opera Mini 7.1.32052closeLinux closecloseyesclosecloseclose0.001 Detail
UAParser
v3.4.5
Opera Mini 7.1.32052closeLinux MotorolaMB525closeclosecloseclose0.001 Detail
UserAgentStringCom
Opera Mini 7.1.32052closeLinux closecloseclosecloseclose0.29203 Detail
WhatIsMyBrowserCom
UC Browser 9.5.0.360 Linux closeclosecloseclosecloseclose0.57006 Detail
WhichBrowser
2.0.10
UC Browser 9.5Gecko Android MotorolaDEFYmobile:smartyescloseclose0.039 Detail
Woothee
v1.2.0
Opera closeclosecloseclosepcclosecloseclose0.001 Detail
Wurfl
1.6.4
UC Browser 8closeAndroid 4.0Feature Phoneyescloseclose0.008 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 13:27:19 | by ThaDafinser