User agent detail

Mozilla/5.0 (Linux; Android 2.3.5; LAVA iris 351 Build/GRJ90) AppleWebKit/537.22 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/25.0.1364.123 Mobile Safari/537.22 OPR/14.0.1025.52315
GeneralDeviceBot
ProviderBrowserEngineOSBrandModelTypeIs mobileIs touchIs botNameTypeParse timeActions
Source result (test suite)
ua-parser/uap-core
vendor/thadafinser/uap-core/tests/test_device.yaml
LavaIris 351 Detail
Providers
BrowscapPhp
6012
Opera Mobile 14.0Blink Android 2.3Mobile Phoneyesyes0.02 Detail
DonatjUAParser
v0.5.0
Opera Next 14.0.1025.52315closeclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
NeutrinoApiCom
Opera Mobile 14.0.1025.52315closeAndroid 2.3.5Lava351mobile-browseryescloseclose0.28303 Detail
PiwikDeviceDetector
3.5.2
Opera Mobile 14.0Presto Android 2.3LavaIris 351smartphoneyes0.007 Detail
SinergiBrowserDetector
6.0.0
Opera 14.0.1025.52315closeAndroid 2.3.5closecloseyesclosecloseclose0.002 Detail
UAParser
v3.4.5
Opera Mobile 14.0.1025closeAndroid 2.3.5LavaIris 351closeclosecloseclose0.001 Detail
UserAgentStringCom
Iris 351closeAndroid 2.3.5closecloseclosecloseclose0.07501 Detail
WhatIsMyBrowserCom
Opera 14.0.1025.52315WebKit 537.22Android 2.3.5closeclosecloseclosecloseclose0.41404 Detail
WhichBrowser
2.0.10
Opera Mobile 14.0Webkit 537.22Android 2.3.5LavaIris 351mobile:smartyescloseclose0.031 Detail
Woothee
v1.2.0
Opera 14.0.1025.52315closeclosecloseclosesmartphoneclosecloseclose0 Detail
Wurfl
1.6.4
Opera 14closeAndroid 2.3Lava351Smartphoneyesyescloseclose0.067 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 13:28:27 | by ThaDafinser