User agent detail

Mozilla/5.0 (Linux; U; Android 4.4.3; en-us; KFASWI Build/KTU84M) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Silk/3.67 like Chrome/39.0.2171.93 Safari/537.36
GeneralDeviceBot
ProviderBrowserEngineOSBrandModelTypeIs mobileIs touchIs botNameTypeParse timeActions
Source result (test suite)
browscap/browscap
/tests/fixtures/issues/issue-687.php
Silk 3.67Android 4.4unknown AmazonFire HD 7 (4th Gen)Tabletyesyes Detail
Providers
BrowscapPhp
6012
Silk 3.67Blink Android 4.4AmazonFire HD 7 (4th Gen)Tabletyesyes0.018 Detail
DonatjUAParser
v0.5.0
Silk 3.67closeclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
NeutrinoApiCom
Chrome 39.0.2171.93closeAndroid 4.4.3desktop-browsercloseclose0.251 Detail
PiwikDeviceDetector
3.5.2
Chrome 39.0Blink Android 4.4AmazonFire HD 7tabletyes0.007 Detail
SinergiBrowserDetector
6.0.0
Chrome 39.0.2171.93closeAndroid 4.4.3closecloseyesclosecloseclose0.006 Detail
UAParser
v3.4.5
Amazon Silk 3.67closeAndroid 4.4.3AmazonKindlecloseclosecloseclose0.004 Detail
UserAgentStringCom
Android Webkit Browser closeAndroid 4.4.3closecloseclosecloseclose0.049 Detail
WhatIsMyBrowserCom
Silk 3.67WebKit 537.36Fire OS AmazonKindlecloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0.416 Detail
WhichBrowser
2.0.10
Silk 3.67Blink FireOS 4.5AmazonFire HD 7tabletyescloseclose0.021 Detail
Woothee
v1.2.0
Chrome 39.0.2171.93closeclosecloseclosesmartphoneclosecloseclose0 Detail
Wurfl
1.6.4
Chrome Mobile 34closeAndroid 4.4AmazonKFASWITabletyesyescloseclose0.014 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 13:27:54 | by ThaDafinser