User agent detail

Mozilla/5.0 (Linux; Android 2.3.5; BASE Lutea 2 Build/GRJ22) AppleWebKit/537.31 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/26.0.1410.58 Mobile Safari/537.31 OPR/14.0.1074.57768
GeneralDeviceBot
ProviderBrowserEngineOSBrandModelTypeIs mobileIs touchIs botNameTypeParse timeActions
Source result (test suite)
ua-parser/uap-core
vendor/thadafinser/uap-core/tests/test_device.yaml
ZTEBASE Lutea 2 Detail
Providers
BrowscapPhp
6012
Opera Mobile 14.0Blink Android 2.3Mobile Phoneyesyes0.022 Detail
DonatjUAParser
v0.5.0
Opera Next 14.0.1074.57768closeclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0.001 Detail
NeutrinoApiCom
Opera Mobile 14.0.1074.57768closeAndroid 2.3.5BaseLutea 2mobile-browseryescloseclose0.26711 Detail
PiwikDeviceDetector
3.5.2
Opera Mobile 14.0Presto Android 2.3yes0.005 Detail
SinergiBrowserDetector
6.0.0
Opera 14.0.1074.57768closeAndroid 2.3.5closecloseyesclosecloseclose0.001 Detail
UAParser
v3.4.5
Opera Mobile 14.0.1074closeAndroid 2.3.5ZTEBASE Lutea 2closeclosecloseclose0.006 Detail
UserAgentStringCom
Android Webkit Browser closeAndroid 2.3.5closecloseclosecloseclose0.10504 Detail
WhatIsMyBrowserCom
Opera 14.0.1074.57768WebKit 537.31Android 2.3.5closeclosecloseclosecloseclose0.41316 Detail
WhichBrowser
2.0.10
Opera Mobile 14.0Webkit 537.31Android 2.3.5BASELutea 2mobile:smartyescloseclose0.043 Detail
Woothee
v1.2.0
Opera 14.0.1074.57768closeclosecloseclosesmartphoneclosecloseclose0 Detail
Wurfl
1.6.4
Opera 14closeAndroid 2.3BaseLutea 2Smartphoneyesyescloseclose0.09599 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 13:35:38 | by ThaDafinser