User agent detail

JUC (Linux; U; 4.0.4; zh-cn; Lenovo_A789_by_KeDou; 480*800) UCWEB7.9.4.145/139/800
GeneralDeviceBot
ProviderBrowserEngineOSBrandModelTypeIs mobileIs touchIs botNameTypeParse timeActions
Source result (test suite)
ua-parser/uap-core
vendor/thadafinser/uap-core/tests/test_device.yaml
LenovoA789_by_KeDou Detail
Providers
BrowscapPhp
6012
UC Browser 7.9WebKit Android 4.0Mobile Phoneyesyes0.01 Detail
DonatjUAParser
v0.5.0
JUC closeclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
NeutrinoApiCom
UC Browser closeLinux mobile-browseryescloseclose0.26003 Detail
PiwikDeviceDetector
3.5.2
UC Browser 7.9 GNU/Linux LenovoA789 by KeDousmartphoneyes0.008 Detail
SinergiBrowserDetector
6.0.0
closeLinux closecloseclosecloseclose0.001 Detail
UAParser
v3.4.5
UC Browser 7.9.4closeAndroid 4.0.4LenovoA789_by_KeDoucloseclosecloseclose0.001 Detail
UserAgentStringCom
UC Browser 7.9.4.145closeLinux closecloseclosecloseclose0.05201 Detail
WhatIsMyBrowserCom
UC Browser 7.9.4.145 Linux closeclosecloseclosecloseclose0.43004 Detail
WhichBrowser
2.0.10
UC Browser 7.9 Android 4.0.4LenovoA789mobile:smartyescloseclose0.05201 Detail
Woothee
v1.2.0
closeclosecloseclosepcclosecloseclose0 Detail
Wurfl
1.6.4
closeLinux Feature Phoneyesyescloseclose0.043 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 13:28:25 | by ThaDafinser