User agent detail

UCWEB/2.0 (Windows; U; wds 7.10; en-US; SAMSUNG; GT-I8350) U2/1.0.0 UCBrowser/3.2.0.340 U2/1.0.0 Mobile
GeneralDeviceBot
ProviderBrowserEngineOSBrandModelTypeIs mobileIs touchIs botNameTypeParse timeActions
Source result (test suite)
browscap/browscap
/tests/fixtures/issues/issue-096.php
UC Browser 3.2WinPhone7 7.0unknown SamsungGT-I8350Mobile Phoneyesyes Detail
Providers
BrowscapPhp
6012
UC Browser 3.2U2 WinPhone7 7.0SamsungGT-I8350Mobile Phoneyesyes0.009 Detail
DonatjUAParser
v0.5.0
UCWEB 2.0closeclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
NeutrinoApiCom
UC Browser closeWindows mobile-browseryescloseclose0.19402 Detail
PiwikDeviceDetector
3.5.2
UC Browser 3.2 Windows SamsungGT-I8350smartphoneyes0.009 Detail
SinergiBrowserDetector
6.0.0
No result found
UAParser
v3.4.5
UC Browser 3.2.0closeWindows Phone 7.10SamsungGT-I8350closeclosecloseclose0.001 Detail
UserAgentStringCom
UC Browser 2.0close closecloseclosecloseclose0.07201 Detail
WhatIsMyBrowserCom
UC Browser 3.2.0.340 Windows Samsungcloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0.40704 Detail
WhichBrowser
2.0.10
UC Browser 3.2Gecko Windows Phone 7.5SamsungOmnia Wmobile:smartyescloseclose0.023 Detail
Woothee
v1.2.0
closeclosecloseclosepcclosecloseclose0 Detail
Wurfl
1.6.4
UC Browser 3closeWindows Phone 7.5SamsungGT-i8350Smartphoneyesyescloseclose0.014 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 13:31:19 | by ThaDafinser