User agent detail

Mozilla/5.0 (Linux; U; en-us; KFJWI Build/IMM76D) AppleWebKit/535.19 (KHTML, like Gecko) Silk/2.9 Safari/535.19 Silk-Accelerated=true
GeneralDeviceBot
ProviderBrowserEngineOSBrandModelTypeIs mobileIs touchIs botNameTypeParse timeActions
Source result (test suite)
browscap/browscap
/tests/fixtures/issues/issue-317.php
Silk 2.9Android unknownunknown AmazonKindle Fire HD 8.9 Wi-FiTabletyesyes Detail
Providers
BrowscapPhp
6012
Silk 2.9WebKit Android AmazonKindle Fire HD 8.9 Wi-FiTabletyesyes0.033 Detail
DonatjUAParser
v0.5.0
Silk 2.9closeclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
NeutrinoApiCom
Safari 535.19closeLinux desktop-browsercloseclose0.25315 Detail
PiwikDeviceDetector
3.5.2
Mobile Silk 2.9Blink Android AmazonKindle Fire HD 8.9" WiFitabletyes0.005 Detail
SinergiBrowserDetector
6.0.0
Safari closeLinux closecloseclosecloseclose0.001 Detail
UAParser
v3.4.5
Amazon Silk 2.9closeAndroid AmazonKindle Fire HD 8.9" WiFicloseclosecloseclose0.004 Detail
UserAgentStringCom
Safari closeLinux closecloseclosecloseclose0.14409 Detail
WhatIsMyBrowserCom
Silk 2.9WebKit 535.19Fire OS AmazonKindle Fire HD 8.9" Wi-Ficloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0.42125 Detail
WhichBrowser
2.0.10
Silk 2.9Webkit 535.19FireOS AmazonKindle Fire HD 8.9"tabletyescloseclose0.008 Detail
Woothee
v1.2.0
Safari closeclosecloseclosepcclosecloseclose0 Detail
Wurfl
1.6.4
Amazon Silk Browser 2.9closeAndroid AmazonKFJWITabletyesyescloseclose0.012 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 13:37:17 | by ThaDafinser