User agent detail

Mozilla/5.0 (Linux; Android 4.2.1; iris504Q Build/iris504Q) AppleWebKit/535.19 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/18.0.1025.166 Mobile Safari/535.19
GeneralDeviceBot
ProviderBrowserEngineOSBrandModelTypeIs mobileIs touchIs botNameTypeParse timeActions
Source result (test suite)
ua-parser/uap-core
vendor/thadafinser/uap-core/tests/test_device.yaml
LavaIris 504Q Detail
Providers
BrowscapPhp
6012
Chrome 18.0WebKit Android 4.2Mobile Phoneyesyes0.031 Detail
DonatjUAParser
v0.5.0
Chrome 18.0.1025.166closeclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
NeutrinoApiCom
Chrome Mobile 18.0.1025.166closeAndroid 4.2.1LavaIris 504qmobile-browseryescloseclose0.27803 Detail
PiwikDeviceDetector
3.5.2
Chrome Mobile 18.0WebKit Android 4.2LavaIris 504Qsmartphoneyes0.004 Detail
SinergiBrowserDetector
6.0.0
Chrome 18.0.1025.166closeAndroid 4.2.1closecloseyesclosecloseclose0.001 Detail
UAParser
v3.4.5
Chrome Mobile 18.0.1025closeAndroid 4.2.1LavaIris 504Qcloseclosecloseclose0.002 Detail
UserAgentStringCom
Iris 504closeAndroid 4.2.1closecloseclosecloseclose0.053 Detail
WhatIsMyBrowserCom
Chrome 18.0.1025.166WebKit 535.19Android 4.2.1closeclosecloseclosecloseclose0.40804 Detail
WhichBrowser
2.0.10
Chrome 18Webkit 535.19Android 4.2.1LavaIris 504Qmobile:smartyescloseclose0.02 Detail
Woothee
v1.2.0
Chrome 18.0.1025.166closeclosecloseclosesmartphoneclosecloseclose0 Detail
Wurfl
1.6.4
Chrome Mobile 33closeAndroid 4.2LavaIris 504qSmartphoneyesyescloseclose0.06601 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 13:32:52 | by ThaDafinser