User agent detail

JUC (Linux; U; 4.0.8; zh-cn; HTC_inspire_4G; 480*800) UCWEB7.9.4.145/139/800
GeneralDeviceBot
ProviderBrowserEngineOSBrandModelTypeIs mobileIs touchIs botNameTypeParse timeActions
Source result (test suite)
ua-parser/uap-core
vendor/thadafinser/uap-core/tests/test_device.yaml
HTCinspire 4G Detail
Providers
BrowscapPhp
6012
UC Browser 7.9WebKit Android 4.0Mobile Phoneyesyes0.008 Detail
DonatjUAParser
v0.5.0
JUC closeclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
NeutrinoApiCom
UC Browser closeLinux HTCA810emobile-browseryescloseclose0.268 Detail
PiwikDeviceDetector
3.5.2
UC Browser 7.9 GNU/Linux HTCinspire 4Gsmartphoneyes0.004 Detail
SinergiBrowserDetector
6.0.0
closeLinux closecloseclosecloseclose0.001 Detail
UAParser
v3.4.5
UC Browser 7.9.4closeAndroid 4.0.8HTCinspire 4Gcloseclosecloseclose0.002 Detail
UserAgentStringCom
UC Browser 7.9.4.145closeLinux closecloseclosecloseclose0.092 Detail
WhatIsMyBrowserCom
UC Browser 7.9.4.145 Linux HTCcloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0.363 Detail
WhichBrowser
2.0.10
UC Browser 7.9 Android 4.0.8HTCInspire 4Gmobile:smartyescloseclose0.024 Detail
Woothee
v1.2.0
closeclosecloseclosepcclosecloseclose0.001 Detail
Wurfl
1.6.4
closeLinux Feature Phoneyesyescloseclose0.012 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 13:31:02 | by ThaDafinser