User agent detail

Mozilla/5.0 (Linux; Android 4.2.2; LG-F320K Build/JDQ39B) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/32.0.1700.72 Mobile Safari/537.36 OPR/19.0.1340.69721
GeneralDeviceBot
ProviderBrowserEngineOSBrandModelTypeIs mobileIs touchIs botNameTypeParse timeActions
Source result (test suite)
ua-parser/uap-core
vendor/thadafinser/uap-core/tests/test_device.yaml
LGF320K Detail
Providers
BrowscapPhp
6012
Opera Mobile 19.0Blink Android 4.2Mobile Phoneyesyes0.07901 Detail
DonatjUAParser
v0.5.0
Opera Next 19.0.1340.69721closeclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0.001 Detail
NeutrinoApiCom
Opera Mobile 19.0.1340.69721closeAndroid 4.2.2LGF320Kmobile-browseryescloseclose0.29803 Detail
PiwikDeviceDetector
3.5.2
Opera Mobile 19.0Blink Android 4.2LGF320Ksmartphoneyes0.008 Detail
SinergiBrowserDetector
6.0.0
Opera 19.0.1340.69721closeAndroid 4.2.2closecloseyesclosecloseclose0 Detail
UAParser
v3.4.5
Opera Mobile 19.0.1340closeAndroid 4.2.2LGF320Kcloseclosecloseclose0.008 Detail
UserAgentStringCom
Android Webkit Browser closeAndroid 4.2.2closecloseclosecloseclose0.04501 Detail
WhatIsMyBrowserCom
Opera 19.0.1340.69721WebKit 537.36Android 4.2.2LGLGF320Kcloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0.40504 Detail
WhichBrowser
2.0.10
Opera Mobile 19.0Blink Android 4.2.2LGG2mobile:smartyescloseclose0.043 Detail
Woothee
v1.2.0
Opera 19.0.1340.69721closeclosecloseclosesmartphoneclosecloseclose0 Detail
Wurfl
1.6.4
Opera 19closeAndroid 4.2LGF320KSmartphoneyesyescloseclose0.06101 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 13:30:34 | by ThaDafinser