User agent detail

Mozilla/5.0 (Linux; Android 3.2.1; AT200 Build/HTK55D) AppleWebKit/537.31 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/26.0.1410.58 Safari/537.31 OPR/14.0.1074.58201
GeneralDeviceBot
ProviderBrowserEngineOSBrandModelTypeIs mobileIs touchIs botNameTypeParse timeActions
Source result (test suite)
ua-parser/uap-core
vendor/thadafinser/uap-core/tests/test_device.yaml
ToshibaAT200 Detail
Providers
BrowscapPhp
6012
Opera Mobile 14.0Blink Android Mobile Phoneyesyes0.054 Detail
DonatjUAParser
v0.5.0
Opera Next 14.0.1074.58201closeclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
NeutrinoApiCom
Opera Mobile 14.0.1074.58201closeAndroid 3.2.1ToshibaAT200mobile-browseryescloseclose0.256 Detail
PiwikDeviceDetector
3.5.2
Opera 14.0Presto Android 3.2ToshibaRegza AT200tabletyes0.006 Detail
SinergiBrowserDetector
6.0.0
Opera 14.0.1074.58201closeAndroid 3.2.1closecloseyesclosecloseclose0.001 Detail
UAParser
v3.4.5
Opera 14.0.1074closeAndroid 3.2.1ToshibaAT200closeclosecloseclose0.002 Detail
UserAgentStringCom
Android Webkit Browser closeAndroid 3.2.1closecloseclosecloseclose0.053 Detail
WhatIsMyBrowserCom
Opera 14.0.1074.58201WebKit 537.31Android 3.2.1closeclosecloseclosecloseclose0.419 Detail
WhichBrowser
2.0.10
Opera 14.0Webkit 537.31Android 3.2.1ToshibaRegza AT200tabletyescloseclose0.035 Detail
Woothee
v1.2.0
Opera 14.0.1074.58201closeclosecloseclosesmartphoneclosecloseclose0 Detail
Wurfl
1.6.4
Opera 14closeAndroid 3.2ToshibaAT200Tabletyesyescloseclose0.055 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 13:29:32 | by ThaDafinser