User agent detail

Mozilla/5.0 (Linux; Android 4.0.4; Treq 3G Basic 2 Build/IMM76D) AppleWebKit/537.31 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/26.0.1410.58 Mobile Safari/537.31
GeneralDeviceBot
ProviderBrowserEngineOSBrandModelTypeIs mobileIs touchIs botNameTypeParse timeActions
Source result (test suite)
ua-parser/uap-core
vendor/thadafinser/uap-core/tests/test_device.yaml
Treq3G Basic 2 Detail
Providers
BrowscapPhp
6012
Chrome 26.0WebKit Android 4.0Mobile Phoneyesyes0.05399 Detail
DonatjUAParser
v0.5.0
Chrome 26.0.1410.58closeclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0.001 Detail
NeutrinoApiCom
Chrome Mobile 26.0.1410.58closeAndroid 4.0.4GenericAndroid 4.0mobile-browseryescloseclose0.29212 Detail
PiwikDeviceDetector
3.5.2
Chrome Mobile 26.0WebKit Android 4.0smartphoneyes0.006 Detail
SinergiBrowserDetector
6.0.0
Chrome 26.0.1410.58closeAndroid 4.0.4closecloseyesclosecloseclose0.001 Detail
UAParser
v3.4.5
Chrome Mobile 26.0.1410closeAndroid 4.0.4Treq3G Basic 2closeclosecloseclose0.01 Detail
UserAgentStringCom
Android Webkit Browser closeAndroid 4.0.4closecloseclosecloseclose0.08703 Detail
WhatIsMyBrowserCom
Chrome 26.0.1410.58WebKit 537.31Android 4.0.4closeclosecloseclosecloseclose0.40916 Detail
WhichBrowser
2.0.10
Chrome Dev 26.0.1410.58Webkit 537.31Android 4.0.4TreqBasic 2tabletyescloseclose0.032 Detail
Woothee
v1.2.0
Chrome 26.0.1410.58closeclosecloseclosesmartphoneclosecloseclose0 Detail
Wurfl
1.6.4
Android Webkit 4.0closeAndroid 4.0Smartphoneyesyescloseclose0.07099 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 13:35:34 | by ThaDafinser