User agent detail

Mozilla/5.0 (Linux; Android 4.1.1; AQUILA 097-1016 BT + 3G Build/JRO03C) AppleWebKit/537.31 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/26.0.1410.58 Safari/537.31
GeneralDeviceBot
ProviderBrowserEngineOSBrandModelTypeIs mobileIs touchIs botNameTypeParse timeActions
Source result (test suite)
ua-parser/uap-core
vendor/thadafinser/uap-core/tests/test_device.yaml
CmxAQUILA 097-1016 BT + 3G Detail
Providers
BrowscapPhp
6012
Chrome 26.0WebKit Android 4.1Mobile Phoneyesyes0.016 Detail
DonatjUAParser
v0.5.0
Chrome 26.0.1410.58closeclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
NeutrinoApiCom
Chrome 26.0.1410.58closeAndroid 4.1.1desktop-browsercloseclose0.29303 Detail
PiwikDeviceDetector
3.5.2
Chrome 26.0WebKit Android 4.1tabletyes0.006 Detail
SinergiBrowserDetector
6.0.0
Chrome 26.0.1410.58closeAndroid 4.1.1closecloseyesclosecloseclose0 Detail
UAParser
v3.4.5
Chrome 26.0.1410closeAndroid 4.1.1CmxAQUILA 097-1016 BT + 3Gcloseclosecloseclose0.003 Detail
UserAgentStringCom
Android Webkit Browser closeAndroid 4.1.1closecloseclosecloseclose0.046 Detail
WhatIsMyBrowserCom
Chrome 26.0.1410.58WebKit 537.31Android 4.1.1closeclosecloseclosecloseclose0.41504 Detail
WhichBrowser
2.0.10
Chrome Dev 26.0.1410.58Webkit 537.31Android 4.1.1AQUILA 097-1016 BT + 3Gtabletyescloseclose0.10701 Detail
Woothee
v1.2.0
Chrome 26.0.1410.58closeclosecloseclosesmartphoneclosecloseclose0 Detail
Wurfl
1.6.4
Android Webkit 4.1closeAndroid 4.1Tabletyesyescloseclose0.05 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 13:27:36 | by ThaDafinser