User agent detail

QQBrowser/14 (Linux; U; 2.2.2; en-us; Motorola XT316 BUILD/FRG83G) Mobile/0050
GeneralDeviceBot
ProviderBrowserEngineOSBrandModelTypeIs mobileIs touchIs botNameTypeParse timeActions
Source result (test suite)
ua-parser/uap-core
vendor/thadafinser/uap-core/tests/test_ua.yaml
QQ Browser 14 Detail
Providers
BrowscapPhp
6012
No result found
DonatjUAParser
v0.5.0
QQBrowser 14closeclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
NeutrinoApiCom
QQ Browser 1.4closeLinux MotorolaXT316mobile-browseryescloseclose0.191 Detail
PiwikDeviceDetector
3.5.2
QQ Browser 14 GNU/Linux MotorolaFiresmartphoneyes0.007 Detail
SinergiBrowserDetector
6.0.0
closeLinux closecloseclosecloseclose0.001 Detail
UAParser
v3.4.5
QQ Browser 14closeLinux closeclosecloseclose0.003 Detail
UserAgentStringCom
No result found
WhatIsMyBrowserCom
QQ Browser 14 Linux closeclosecloseclosecloseclose0.411 Detail
WhichBrowser
2.0.10
QQ Browser 1.4 Linux MotorolaXT316mobile:featureyescloseclose0.013 Detail
Woothee
v1.2.0
closeclosecloseclosepcclosecloseclose0 Detail
Wurfl
1.6.4
Opera 11.10closeLinux armv6l Feature Phoneyescloseclose0.015 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 13:29:25 | by ThaDafinser