User agent detail

Mozilla/5.0 (Linux; Android 4.2.2; INSIGNIA_785_PRO Build/GOCLEVER) 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-525.php
Chrome 38.0Android 4.2unknown GOCLEVERINSIGNIA 785 PROTabletyesyes Detail
Providers
BrowscapPhp
6012
Chrome 38.0Blink Android 4.2GOCLEVERINSIGNIA 785 PROTabletyesyes0.052 Detail
DonatjUAParser
v0.5.0
Chrome 38.0.2125.102closeclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
NeutrinoApiCom
Chrome 38.0.2125.102closeAndroid 4.2.2desktop-browsercloseclose0.289 Detail
PiwikDeviceDetector
3.5.2
Chrome 38.0Blink Android 4.2GOCLEVERINSIGNIA 785 PROsmartphoneyes0.005 Detail
SinergiBrowserDetector
6.0.0
Chrome 38.0.2125.102closeAndroid 4.2.2closecloseyesclosecloseclose0.001 Detail
UAParser
v3.4.5
Chrome 38.0.2125closeAndroid 4.2.2INSIGNIA_785_PROcloseclosecloseclose0.003 Detail
UserAgentStringCom
Android Webkit Browser closeAndroid 4.2.2closecloseclosecloseclose0.051 Detail
WhatIsMyBrowserCom
Chrome 38.0.2125.102WebKit 537.36Android 4.2.2closeclosecloseclosecloseclose0.411 Detail
WhichBrowser
2.0.10
Chrome 38Blink Android 4.2.2INSIGNIA_785_PROtabletyescloseclose0.09801 Detail
Woothee
v1.2.0
Chrome 38.0.2125.102closeclosecloseclosesmartphoneclosecloseclose0.001 Detail
Wurfl
1.6.4
Chrome Mobile 42closeAndroid 4.2Tabletyesyescloseclose0.046 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 13:29:24 | by ThaDafinser