User agent detail

Mozilla/5.0 (Linux; U; Android 2.3.6; En-US; Karbonn A50 Build/MocorDroid2.3.5) AppleWebKit/534.31 (KHTML, Like Gecko) UCBrowser/9.2.3.324 U3/0.8.0 Mobile Safari/534.31
GeneralDeviceBot
ProviderBrowserEngineOSBrandModelTypeIs mobileIs touchIs botNameTypeParse timeActions
Source result (test suite)
ua-parser/uap-core
vendor/thadafinser/uap-core/tests/test_device.yaml
KarbonnA50 Detail
Providers
BrowscapPhp
6012
UC Browser 9.2U3 Android 2.3Mobile Phoneyesyes0.15402 Detail
DonatjUAParser
v0.5.0
Android Browser 534.31closeclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0.001 Detail
NeutrinoApiCom
UC Browser 9.2.3.324closeAndroid 2.3.6GenericAndroid 2.3mobile-browseryescloseclose0.26703 Detail
PiwikDeviceDetector
3.5.2
UC Browser 9.2WebKit MocorDroid 2.3KarbonnA50smartphoneyes0.004 Detail
SinergiBrowserDetector
6.0.0
Navigator closeAndroid 2.3.6closecloseyesclosecloseclose0.001 Detail
UAParser
v3.4.5
UC Browser 9.2.3closeAndroid 2.3.6KarbonnA50closeclosecloseclose0.001 Detail
UserAgentStringCom
Android Webkit Browser closeAndroid 2.3.6closecloseclosecloseclose0.07901 Detail
WhatIsMyBrowserCom
UC Browser 9.2.3.324WebKit 534.31Android 2.3.6Karbonn Mobilescloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0.43504 Detail
WhichBrowser
2.0.10
UC Browser 9.2Webkit 534.31Android 2.3.6KarbonnA50mobile:smartyescloseclose0.021 Detail
Woothee
v1.2.0
Safari closeclosecloseclosesmartphoneclosecloseclose0 Detail
Wurfl
1.6.4
UC Browser 8closeAndroid 2.3Feature Phoneyesyescloseclose0.019 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 13:33:33 | by ThaDafinser