User agent detail

UCWEB/2.0 (Linux; U; Opera Mini/7.1.32052/30.3697; en-US; GT-S7262) U2/1.0.0 UCBrowser/8.8.1.359 Mobile
GeneralDeviceBot
ProviderBrowserEngineOSBrandModelTypeIs mobileIs touchIs botNameTypeParse timeActions
Source result (test suite)
browscap/browscap
/tests/fixtures/issues/issue-096.php
UC Browser 8.8Android unknownunknown SamsungGT-S7262Mobile Phoneyesyes Detail
Providers
BrowscapPhp
6012
UC Browser 8.8U2 Android SamsungGT-S7262Mobile Phoneyesyes0.019 Detail
DonatjUAParser
v0.5.0
Opera Minicloseclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
NeutrinoApiCom
UC Browser closeLinux mobile-browseryescloseclose0.26403 Detail
PiwikDeviceDetector
3.5.2
Opera Mini 7.1Presto GNU/Linux SamsungGT-S7262smartphoneyes0.007 Detail
SinergiBrowserDetector
6.0.0
Opera Mini 7.1.32052closeLinux closecloseyesclosecloseclose0 Detail
UAParser
v3.4.5
Opera Mini 7.1.32052closeLinux SamsungGT-S7262closeclosecloseclose0.01 Detail
UserAgentStringCom
Opera Mini 7.1.32052closeLinux closecloseclosecloseclose0.08201 Detail
WhatIsMyBrowserCom
UC Browser 8.8.1.359 Linux Samsungcloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0.41304 Detail
WhichBrowser
2.0.10
UC Browser 8.8Gecko Android SamsungGalaxy Star Promobile:smartyescloseclose0.038 Detail
Woothee
v1.2.0
Opera closeclosecloseclosepcclosecloseclose0.001 Detail
Wurfl
1.6.4
UC Browser 8closeAndroid 4.0Feature Phoneyescloseclose0.01 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 13:31:17 | by ThaDafinser