User agent detail

lg-gb280/UC Browser7.9.0.102/69/352 UNTRUSTED/1.0
GeneralDeviceBot
ProviderBrowserEngineOSBrandModelTypeIs mobileIs touchIs botNameTypeParse timeActions
Source result (test suite)
ua-parser/uap-core
vendor/thadafinser/uap-core/tests/test_device.yaml
LGgb280 Detail
Providers
BrowscapPhp
6012
UC Browser 7.9WebKit Android Mobile Phoneyesyes0.035 Detail
DonatjUAParser
v0.5.0
lg-gb280 UCcloseclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
NeutrinoApiCom
UC Browser 7.9.0.102close LGgb280mobile-browseryescloseclose0.18911 Detail
PiwikDeviceDetector
3.5.2
UC Browser 7.9 LGgb280smartphoneyes0.006 Detail
SinergiBrowserDetector
6.0.0
No result found
UAParser
v3.4.5
UC Browser 7.9.0close LGgb280closeclosecloseclose0.002 Detail
UserAgentStringCom
No result found
WhatIsMyBrowserCom
UC Browser 7.9.0.102 LGLGgb280closeclosecloseclosecloseclose0.40925 Detail
WhichBrowser
2.0.10
UC Browser 7.9Gecko LGgb280mobile:featureyescloseclose0.018 Detail
Woothee
v1.2.0
No result found
Wurfl
1.6.4
Opera 11.10closeLinux armv6l Feature Phoneyescloseclose0.015 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 13:37:07 | by ThaDafinser