User agent detail

UCWEB/2.0 (Linux; U; Adr 2.3.6; en-US; GT-S5360) U2/1.0.0 UCBrowser/9.2.3.324 U2/1.0.0 Mobile
GeneralDeviceBot
ProviderBrowserEngineOSBrandModelTypeIs mobileIs touchIs botNameTypeParse timeActions
Source result (test suite)
browscap/browscap
/tests/fixtures/issues/issue-096.php
UC Browser 9.2Android 2.3unknown SamsungGalaxy YMobile Phoneyesyes Detail
Providers
BrowscapPhp
6012
UC Browser 9.2U2 Android 2.3SamsungGalaxy YMobile Phoneyesyes0.019 Detail
DonatjUAParser
v0.5.0
UCWEB 2.0closeclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
NeutrinoApiCom
UC Browser closeLinux SamsungGT-S5360mobile-browseryescloseclose0.2511 Detail
PiwikDeviceDetector
3.5.2
UC Browser 9.2 Android 2.3SamsungGALAXY Y Hello Kittysmartphoneyes0.005 Detail
SinergiBrowserDetector
6.0.0
closeLinux closecloseclosecloseclose0.001 Detail
UAParser
v3.4.5
UC Browser 9.2.3closeAndroid 2.3.6SamsungGT-S5360closeclosecloseclose0.001 Detail
UserAgentStringCom
UC Browser 2.0closeLinux closecloseclosecloseclose0.10004 Detail
WhatIsMyBrowserCom
UC Browser 9.2.3.324 Linux Samsungcloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0.42717 Detail
WhichBrowser
2.0.10
UC Browser 9.2Gecko Android 2.3.6SamsungGalaxy Ymobile:smartyescloseclose0.028 Detail
Woothee
v1.2.0
closeclosecloseclosepcclosecloseclose0 Detail
Wurfl
1.6.4
UC Browser 9closeAndroid 2.3SamsungGT-S5360Feature Phoneyesyescloseclose0.018 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 13:35:28 | by ThaDafinser