User agent detail

Mozilla/5.0 (Linux; U; Android 4.4.2; en-US; JINGA_IGO_M1 Build/KOT49H) AppleWebKit/534.30 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0 UCBrowser/10.3.0.552 U3/0.8.0 Mobile Safari/534.30
GeneralDeviceBot
ProviderBrowserEngineOSBrandModelTypeIs mobileIs touchIs botNameTypeParse timeActions
Source result (test suite)
browscap/browscap
/tests/fixtures/issues/issue-635.php
UC Browser 10.3Android 4.4unknown JingaIGO M1Mobile Phoneyesyes Detail
Providers
BrowscapPhp
6012
UC Browser 10.3U3 Android 4.4JingaIGO M1Mobile Phoneyesyes0.012 Detail
DonatjUAParser
v0.5.0
Android Browser 4.0closeclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0.001 Detail
NeutrinoApiCom
Android Webkit 4.0closeAndroid 4.4.2GenericAndroidmobile-browseryescloseclose0.27802 Detail
PiwikDeviceDetector
3.5.2
UC Browser 10.3WebKit Android 4.4yes0.006 Detail
SinergiBrowserDetector
6.0.0
Navigator 4.0closeAndroid 4.4.2closecloseyesclosecloseclose0.001 Detail
UAParser
v3.4.5
UC Browser 10.3.0closeAndroid 4.4.2JINGA_IGO_M1closeclosecloseclose0.01 Detail
UserAgentStringCom
Android Webkit Browser closeAndroid 4.4.2closecloseclosecloseclose0.23301 Detail
WhatIsMyBrowserCom
UC Browser 10.3.0.552WebKit 534.30Android 4.4.2closeclosecloseclosecloseclose0.40902 Detail
WhichBrowser
2.0.10
UC Browser 10.3Webkit 534.30Android 4.4.2JINGA_IGO_M1mobile:smartyescloseclose0.08201 Detail
Woothee
v1.2.0
Safari 4.0closeclosecloseclosesmartphoneclosecloseclose0 Detail
Wurfl
1.6.4
UC Browser 9closeAndroid 4.2Smartphoneyesyescloseclose0.013 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 13:37:03 | by ThaDafinser