User agent detail

Mozilla/5.0 (Linux; Android 4.2.2; Lenovo S5000-H Build/JDQ39) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/38.0.2125.102 Safari/537.36
GeneralDeviceBot
ProviderBrowserEngineOSBrandModelTypeIs mobileIs touchIs botNameTypeParse timeActions
Source result (test suite)
browscap/browscap
/tests/fixtures/issues/issue-523.php
Chrome 38.0Android 4.2unknown LenovoIdeaTab S5000-HTabletyesyes Detail
Providers
BrowscapPhp
6012
Chrome 38.0Blink Android 4.2LenovoIdeaTab S5000-HTabletyesyes0.013 Detail
DonatjUAParser
v0.5.0
Chrome 38.0.2125.102closeclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0.001 Detail
NeutrinoApiCom
Chrome 38.0.2125.102closeAndroid 4.2.2desktop-browsercloseclose0.27203 Detail
PiwikDeviceDetector
3.5.2
Chrome 38.0Blink Android 4.2LenovoS5000-Hsmartphoneyes0.007 Detail
SinergiBrowserDetector
6.0.0
Chrome 38.0.2125.102closeAndroid 4.2.2closecloseyesclosecloseclose0.001 Detail
UAParser
v3.4.5
Chrome 38.0.2125closeAndroid 4.2.2LenovoS5000-Hcloseclosecloseclose0.002 Detail
UserAgentStringCom
Android Webkit Browser closeAndroid 4.2.2closecloseclosecloseclose1.61116 Detail
WhatIsMyBrowserCom
Chrome 38.0.2125.102WebKit 537.36Android 4.2.2closeclosecloseclosecloseclose0.67007 Detail
WhichBrowser
2.0.10
Chrome 38Blink Android 4.2.2LenovoIdeaTab S5000tabletyescloseclose0.037 Detail
Woothee
v1.2.0
Chrome 38.0.2125.102closeclosecloseclosesmartphoneclosecloseclose0 Detail
Wurfl
1.6.4
Chrome Mobile 38closeAndroid 4.2LenovoS5000-HTabletyesyescloseclose0.041 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 13:28:35 | by ThaDafinser