User agent detail

Mozilla/5.0 (Linux; Android 4.2.2; POV_TAB-P722C(V1.0) Build/JDQ39) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/34.0.1847.114 Safari/537.36
GeneralDeviceBot
ProviderBrowserEngineOSBrandModelTypeIs mobileIs touchIs botNameTypeParse timeActions
Source result (test suite)
piwik/device-detector
/Tests/fixtures/tablet-1.yml
Chrome 34.0.1847.114Android 4.2.2Blink Point of ViewMobii 722Ctablet Detail
Providers
BrowscapPhp
6012
Chrome 34.0Blink Android 4.2Mobile Phoneyesyes0.046 Detail
DonatjUAParser
v0.5.0
Chrome 34.0.1847.114closeclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0.001 Detail
NeutrinoApiCom
Chrome 34.0.1847.114closeAndroid 4.2.2desktop-browsercloseclose0.26203 Detail
PiwikDeviceDetector
3.5.2
Chrome 34.0Blink Android 4.2Point of ViewMobii 722Ctabletyes0.006 Detail
SinergiBrowserDetector
6.0.0
Chrome 34.0.1847.114closeAndroid 4.2.2closecloseyesclosecloseclose0.001 Detail
UAParser
v3.4.5
Chrome 34.0.1847closeAndroid 4.2.2POVTAB-P722C(V1.0)closeclosecloseclose0.003 Detail
UserAgentStringCom
Android Webkit Browser closeAndroid 4.2.2closecloseclosecloseclose0.06401 Detail
WhatIsMyBrowserCom
Chrome 34.0.1847.114WebKit 537.36Android 4.2.2closeclosecloseclosecloseclose0.41304 Detail
WhichBrowser
2.0.10
Chrome 34Blink Android 4.2.2Point Of ViewMobii 722Ctabletyescloseclose0.03 Detail
Woothee
v1.2.0
Chrome 34.0.1847.114closeclosecloseclosesmartphoneclosecloseclose0 Detail
Wurfl
1.6.4
Chrome Mobile 42closeAndroid 4.2Tabletyesyescloseclose0.025 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 13:33:46 | by ThaDafinser