User agent detail

JUC(Linux;U;4.2.2;Zh_cn;GT-I9300-JB2;720*1280;)UCWEB7.6.0.75/139/999
GeneralDeviceBot
ProviderBrowserEngineOSBrandModelTypeIs mobileIs touchIs botNameTypeParse timeActions
Source result (test suite)
whichbrowser/parser
/tests/data/mobile/browser-uc.yaml
UC Browser 7.6Android 4.2.2 SamsungGalaxy S IIImobile:smartyes Detail
Providers
BrowscapPhp
6012
UC Browser 7.6WebKit Android Mobile Phoneyesyes0.011 Detail
DonatjUAParser
v0.5.0
JUC closeclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
NeutrinoApiCom
UC Browser closeLinux mobile-browseryescloseclose0.26303 Detail
PiwikDeviceDetector
3.5.2
UC Browser 7.6 GNU/Linux SamsungGALAXY S IIIsmartphoneyes0.006 Detail
SinergiBrowserDetector
6.0.0
closeLinux closecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
UAParser
v3.4.5
UC Browser 7.6.0closeAndroid 4.2.2SamsungGT-I9300-JB2closeclosecloseclose0.009 Detail
UserAgentStringCom
UC Browser 7.6.0.75closeLinux closecloseclosecloseclose0.06101 Detail
WhatIsMyBrowserCom
UC Browser 7.6.0.75 Linux SamsungGalaxy S IIIcloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0.40504 Detail
WhichBrowser
2.0.10
UC Browser 7.6 Android 4.2.2SamsungGalaxy S IIImobile:smartyescloseclose0.037 Detail
Woothee
v1.2.0
closeclosecloseclosepcclosecloseclose0 Detail
Wurfl
1.6.4
Opera 11.10closeLinux armv6l Feature Phoneyescloseclose0.008 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 13:32:59 | by ThaDafinser