User agent detail

Mozilla/5.0 (Linux; Android 4.2.2; CAPTIVA PAD 10.1 Quad FHD Build/JDQ39) 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
CaptivaPAD 10.1 Quad FHD Detail
Providers
BrowscapPhp
6012
Chrome 26.0WebKit Android 4.2Mobile Phoneyesyes0.048 Detail
DonatjUAParser
v0.5.0
Chrome 26.0.1410.58closeclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
NeutrinoApiCom
Chrome 26.0.1410.58closeAndroid 4.2.2desktop-browsercloseclose0.245 Detail
PiwikDeviceDetector
3.5.2
Chrome 26.0WebKit Android 4.2CaptivaPad PAD 10.1 Quad FHDtabletyes0.005 Detail
SinergiBrowserDetector
6.0.0
Chrome 26.0.1410.58closeAndroid 4.2.2closecloseyesclosecloseclose0 Detail
UAParser
v3.4.5
Chrome 26.0.1410closeAndroid 4.2.2CaptivaPAD 10.1 Quad FHDcloseclosecloseclose0.001 Detail
UserAgentStringCom
Android Webkit Browser closeAndroid 4.2.2closecloseclosecloseclose0.065 Detail
WhatIsMyBrowserCom
Chrome 26.0.1410.58WebKit 537.31Android 4.2.2closeclosecloseclosecloseclose0.415 Detail
WhichBrowser
2.0.10
Chrome Dev 26.0.1410.58Webkit 537.31Android 4.2.2CaptivaPad 10.1 Quad FHDtabletyescloseclose0.013 Detail
Woothee
v1.2.0
Chrome 26.0.1410.58closeclosecloseclosesmartphoneclosecloseclose0 Detail
Wurfl
1.6.4
Chrome Mobile 42closeAndroid 4.2Tabletyesyescloseclose0.043 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 13:27:51 | by ThaDafinser