User agent detail

MQQBrowser/3.5/Mozilla/5.0 (Linux; U; Android 2.3.4; zh-cn; HTC EVO 3D by xiaoleizi Build/GRJ22) AppleWebKit/533.1 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0 Mobile Safari/533.1
GeneralDeviceBot
ProviderBrowserEngineOSBrandModelTypeIs mobileIs touchIs botNameTypeParse timeActions
Source result (test suite)
ua-parser/uap-core
vendor/thadafinser/uap-core/tests/test_device.yaml
HTCEVO 3D by xiaoleizi Detail
Providers
BrowscapPhp
6012
QQbrowser 3.5WebKit Android 2.3Mobile Phoneyesyes0.01 Detail
DonatjUAParser
v0.5.0
Android Browser 4.0closeclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
NeutrinoApiCom
Android Webkit 4.0closeAndroid 2.3.4HTCX515amobile-browseryescloseclose0.25903 Detail
PiwikDeviceDetector
3.5.2
QQ Browser 3.5WebKit Android 2.3HTCEVO 3D by xiaoleizismartphoneyes0.004 Detail
SinergiBrowserDetector
6.0.0
Navigator 4.0closeAndroid 2.3.4closecloseyesclosecloseclose0.001 Detail
UAParser
v3.4.5
QQ Browser Mobile 3.5closeAndroid 2.3.4HTCEVO 3D by xiaoleizicloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
UserAgentStringCom
Android Webkit Browser closeAndroid 2.3.4closecloseclosecloseclose0.07701 Detail
WhatIsMyBrowserCom
QQ Browser 3.5WebKit 533.1Android 2.3.4HTCcloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0.41004 Detail
WhichBrowser
2.0.10
QQ Browser 3.5Webkit 533.1Android 2.3.4HTCEVO 3Dmobile:smartyescloseclose0.017 Detail
Woothee
v1.2.0
Safari 4.0closeclosecloseclosesmartphoneclosecloseclose0.001 Detail
Wurfl
1.6.4
Android Webkit 2.3closeAndroid 2.3Smartphoneyesyescloseclose0.048 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 13:29:12 | by ThaDafinser