User agent detail

UCWEB/2.0 (Linux; U; Opera Mini/7.1.32052/30.3697; en-US; Lenovo_A376) U2/1.0.0 UCBrowser/9.2.0.419 Mobile
GeneralDeviceBot
ProviderBrowserEngineOSBrandModelTypeIs mobileIs touchIs botNameTypeParse timeActions
Source result (test suite)
browscap/browscap
/tests/fixtures/issues/issue-635.php
UC Browser 9.2Android 4.0unknown LenovoA376Mobile Phoneyesyes Detail
Providers
BrowscapPhp
6012
UC Browser 9.2U2 Android 4.0LenovoA376Mobile Phoneyesyes0.009 Detail
DonatjUAParser
v0.5.0
Opera Minicloseclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
NeutrinoApiCom
UC Browser closeLinux mobile-browseryescloseclose0.194 Detail
PiwikDeviceDetector
3.5.2
Opera Mini 7.1Presto GNU/Linux LenovoA376smartphoneyes0.011 Detail
SinergiBrowserDetector
6.0.0
Opera Mini 7.1.32052closeLinux closecloseyesclosecloseclose0 Detail
UAParser
v3.4.5
Opera Mini 7.1.32052closeLinux LenovoA376closeclosecloseclose0.001 Detail
UserAgentStringCom
Opera Mini 7.1.32052closeLinux closecloseclosecloseclose0.05 Detail
WhatIsMyBrowserCom
UC Browser 9.2.0.419 Linux closeclosecloseclosecloseclose0.403 Detail
WhichBrowser
2.0.10
UC Browser 9.2Gecko LenovoA376) U2mobile:featureyescloseclose0.018 Detail
Woothee
v1.2.0
Opera closeclosecloseclosepcclosecloseclose0 Detail
Wurfl
1.6.4
UC Browser 8closeAndroid 4.0Feature Phoneyescloseclose0.01 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 13:27:58 | by ThaDafinser