User agent detail

Mozilla/5.0 (Linux; Android 4.1.1; TP10.1-1500DC-metal Build/JRO03H) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/31.0.1650.57 Safari/537.36 OPR/18.0.1290.67495
GeneralDeviceBot
ProviderBrowserEngineOSBrandModelTypeIs mobileIs touchIs botNameTypeParse timeActions
Source result (test suite)
ua-parser/uap-core
vendor/thadafinser/uap-core/tests/test_device.yaml
ionikTP10.1-1500DC-metal Detail
Providers
BrowscapPhp
6012
Opera Mobile 18.0Blink Android 4.1Mobile Phoneyesyes0.016 Detail
DonatjUAParser
v0.5.0
Opera Next 18.0.1290.67495closeclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
NeutrinoApiCom
Opera Mobile 18.0.1290.67495closeAndroid 4.1.1GenericAndroid 4.1mobile-browseryescloseclose0.309 Detail
PiwikDeviceDetector
3.5.2
Opera 18.0Blink Android 4.1yes0.007 Detail
SinergiBrowserDetector
6.0.0
Opera 18.0.1290.67495closeAndroid 4.1.1closecloseyesclosecloseclose0 Detail
UAParser
v3.4.5
Opera 18.0.1290closeAndroid 4.1.1ionikTP10.1-1500DC-metalcloseclosecloseclose0.005 Detail
UserAgentStringCom
Android Webkit Browser closeAndroid 4.1.1closecloseclosecloseclose0.051 Detail
WhatIsMyBrowserCom
Opera 18.0.1290.67495WebKit 537.36Android 4.1.1closeclosecloseclosecloseclose0.409 Detail
WhichBrowser
2.0.10
Opera 18.0Blink Android 4.1.1TP10.1-1500DC-metaltabletyescloseclose0.15702 Detail
Woothee
v1.2.0
Opera 18.0.1290.67495closeclosecloseclosesmartphoneclosecloseclose0 Detail
Wurfl
1.6.4
Android Webkit 4.1closeAndroid 4.1Tabletyesyescloseclose0.042 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 13:27:49 | by ThaDafinser