User agent detail

UCWEB/2.0 (MIDP-2.0; U; Adr 4.2.2; ru; GT-N8000) U2/1.0.0 UCBrowser/9.9.0.543 U2/1.0.0 Mobile
GeneralDeviceBot
ProviderBrowserEngineOSBrandModelTypeIs mobileIs touchIs botNameTypeParse timeActions
Source result (test suite)
browscap/browscap
/tests/fixtures/issues/issue-635.php
UC Browser 9.9Android 4.2unknown SamsungGalaxy Note 10.1 3G & WiFiTabletyesyes Detail
Providers
BrowscapPhp
6012
UC Browser 9.9U2 Android 4.2SamsungGalaxy Note 10.1 3G & WiFiTabletyesyes0.014 Detail
DonatjUAParser
v0.5.0
UCWEB 2.0closeclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
NeutrinoApiCom
UC Browser close SamsungGT-I9060mobile-browseryescloseclose0.25498 Detail
PiwikDeviceDetector
3.5.2
UC Browser 9.9 Android 4.2SamsungGALAXY Note 10.1"tabletyes0.005 Detail
SinergiBrowserDetector
6.0.0
No result found
UAParser
v3.4.5
UC Browser 9.9.0closeAndroid 4.2.2SamsungGT-N8000closeclosecloseclose0.002 Detail
UserAgentStringCom
UC Browser 2.0close closecloseclosecloseclose0.06399 Detail
WhatIsMyBrowserCom
UC Browser 9.9.0.543 SamsungMobilecloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0.50995 Detail
WhichBrowser
2.0.10
UC Browser 9.9Gecko Android 4.2.2SamsungGalaxy Note 10.1tabletyescloseclose0.029 Detail
Woothee
v1.2.0
No result found
Wurfl
1.6.4
UC Browser 8closeAndroid 4.0Feature Phoneyescloseclose0.012 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 13:34:53 | by ThaDafinser