User agent detail

Mozilla/5.0 (Linux; Android 4.4.2; BRAVIS NP 844 Build/KVT49L) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/41.0.2272.74 Safari/537.36 OPR/28.0.1764.89981
GeneralDeviceBot
ProviderBrowserEngineOSBrandModelTypeIs mobileIs touchIs botNameTypeParse timeActions
Source result (test suite)
browscap/browscap
/tests/fixtures/issues/issue-635.php
Opera Mobile 28.0Android 4.4unknown BravisNP 844Tabletyesyes Detail
Providers
BrowscapPhp
6012
Opera Mobile 28.0Blink Android 4.4BravisNP 844Tabletyesyes0.018 Detail
DonatjUAParser
v0.5.0
Opera Next 28.0.1764.89981closeclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
NeutrinoApiCom
Opera Mobile 28.0.1764.89981closeAndroid 4.4.2GenericAndroidmobile-browseryescloseclose0.30103 Detail
PiwikDeviceDetector
3.5.2
Opera 28.0Blink Android 4.4yes0.005 Detail
SinergiBrowserDetector
6.0.0
Opera 28.0.1764.89981closeAndroid 4.4.2closecloseyesclosecloseclose0.001 Detail
UAParser
v3.4.5
Opera 28.0.1764closeAndroid 4.4.2BRAVIS NP 844closeclosecloseclose0.008 Detail
UserAgentStringCom
Android Webkit Browser closeAndroid 4.4.2closecloseclosecloseclose0.08501 Detail
WhatIsMyBrowserCom
Opera 28.0.1764.89981WebKit 537.36Android 4.4.2closeclosecloseclosecloseclose0.59806 Detail
WhichBrowser
2.0.10
Opera 28.0Blink Android 4.4.2BRAVIS NP 844tabletyescloseclose0.08701 Detail
Woothee
v1.2.0
Opera 28.0.1764.89981closeclosecloseclosesmartphoneclosecloseclose0 Detail
Wurfl
1.6.4
Chromium 30closeAndroid 4.4Tabletyesyescloseclose0.028 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 13:37:46 | by ThaDafinser