User agent detail

Mozilla/5.0 (Linux; Android 4.2.1; i-mobile IQ X Build/JOP40D) AppleWebKit/537.31 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/26.0.1410.58 Mobile Safari/537.31
GeneralDeviceBot
ProviderBrowserEngineOSBrandModelTypeIs mobileIs touchIs botNameTypeParse timeActions
Source result (test suite)
ua-parser/uap-core
vendor/thadafinser/uap-core/tests/test_device.yaml
imobileIQ X Detail
Providers
BrowscapPhp
6012
Chrome 26.0WebKit Android 4.2Mobile Phoneyesyes0.03 Detail
DonatjUAParser
v0.5.0
Chrome 26.0.1410.58closeclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
NeutrinoApiCom
Chrome Mobile 26.0.1410.58closeAndroid 4.2.1GenericAndroid 4.2mobile-browseryescloseclose0.27603 Detail
PiwikDeviceDetector
3.5.2
Chrome Mobile 26.0WebKit Android 4.2i-mobileIQ Xsmartphoneyes0.004 Detail
SinergiBrowserDetector
6.0.0
Chrome 26.0.1410.58closeAndroid 4.2.1closecloseyesclosecloseclose0.001 Detail
UAParser
v3.4.5
Chrome Mobile 26.0.1410closeAndroid 4.2.1imobileIQ Xcloseclosecloseclose0.003 Detail
UserAgentStringCom
Android Webkit Browser closeAndroid 4.2.1closecloseclosecloseclose0.18202 Detail
WhatIsMyBrowserCom
Chrome 26.0.1410.58WebKit 537.31Android 4.2.1closeclosecloseclosecloseclose0.40804 Detail
WhichBrowser
2.0.10
Chrome Dev 26.0.1410.58Webkit 537.31Android 4.2.1i-MobileiQ Xmobile:smartyescloseclose0.043 Detail
Woothee
v1.2.0
Chrome 26.0.1410.58closeclosecloseclosesmartphoneclosecloseclose0.001 Detail
Wurfl
1.6.4
Android Webkit 4.2closeAndroid 4.2Smartphoneyesyescloseclose0.05401 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