User agent detail

Mozilla/5.0 (Linux; U; Android 2.3.6; en-US; i-MOBILE i-STYLE 5i Build/GRK39F) AppleWebKit/534.31 (KHTML, like Gecko) UCBrowser/9.3.1.344 U3/0.8.0 Mobile Safari/534.31
GeneralDeviceBot
ProviderBrowserEngineOSBrandModelTypeIs mobileIs touchIs botNameTypeParse timeActions
Source result (test suite)
ua-parser/uap-core
vendor/thadafinser/uap-core/tests/test_device.yaml
imobilei-STYLE 5i Detail
Providers
BrowscapPhp
6012
UC Browser 9.3U3 Android 2.3Mobile Phoneyesyes0.033 Detail
DonatjUAParser
v0.5.0
Android Browser 534.31closeclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
NeutrinoApiCom
UC Browser 9.3.1.344closeAndroid 2.3.6GenericAndroid 2.3mobile-browseryescloseclose0.30803 Detail
PiwikDeviceDetector
3.5.2
UC Browser 9.3WebKit Android 2.3i-mobilei-Style 5ismartphoneyes0.008 Detail
SinergiBrowserDetector
6.0.0
Navigator closeAndroid 2.3.6closecloseyesclosecloseclose0 Detail
UAParser
v3.4.5
UC Browser 9.3.1closeAndroid 2.3.6imobilei-STYLE 5icloseclosecloseclose0.001 Detail
UserAgentStringCom
Android Webkit Browser closeAndroid 2.3.6closecloseclosecloseclose0.07801 Detail
WhatIsMyBrowserCom
UC Browser 9.3.1.344WebKit 534.31Android 2.3.6closeclosecloseclosecloseclose0.44104 Detail
WhichBrowser
2.0.10
UC Browser 9.3Webkit 534.31Android 2.3.6i-MOBILE i-STYLE 5imobile:smartyescloseclose0.15201 Detail
Woothee
v1.2.0
Safari closeclosecloseclosesmartphoneclosecloseclose0 Detail
Wurfl
1.6.4
UC Browser 8closeAndroid 2.3Feature Phoneyesyescloseclose0.02 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 13:28:31 | by ThaDafinser