User agent detail

Mozilla/5.0 (Linux; Android 3.1; HTC PG09410 Build/HMJ15) AppleWebKit/537.31 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/26.0.1410.58 Safari/537.31 OPR/14.0.1074.58201
GeneralDeviceBot
ProviderBrowserEngineOSBrandModelTypeIs mobileIs touchIs botNameTypeParse timeActions
Source result (test suite)
ua-parser/uap-core
vendor/thadafinser/uap-core/tests/test_device.yaml
HTCPG09410 Detail
Providers
BrowscapPhp
6012
Opera Mobile 14.0Blink Android Mobile Phoneyesyes0.032 Detail
DonatjUAParser
v0.5.0
Opera Next 14.0.1074.58201closeclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0.001 Detail
NeutrinoApiCom
Opera Mobile 14.0.1074.58201closeAndroid 3.1HTCPG09410mobile-browseryescloseclose0.27706 Detail
PiwikDeviceDetector
3.5.2
Opera 14.0Presto Android 3.1HTCPG09410smartphoneyes0.005 Detail
SinergiBrowserDetector
6.0.0
Opera 14.0.1074.58201closeAndroid 3.1closecloseyesclosecloseclose0.001 Detail
UAParser
v3.4.5
Opera 14.0.1074closeAndroid 3.1HTCPG09410closeclosecloseclose0.003 Detail
UserAgentStringCom
Android Webkit Browser closeAndroid 3.1closecloseclosecloseclose0.05401 Detail
WhatIsMyBrowserCom
Opera 14.0.1074.58201WebKit 537.31Android 3.1HTCcloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0.40608 Detail
WhichBrowser
2.0.10
Opera 14.0Webkit 537.31Android 3.1HTCJetstreamtabletyescloseclose0.018 Detail
Woothee
v1.2.0
Opera 14.0.1074.58201closeclosecloseclosesmartphoneclosecloseclose0 Detail
Wurfl
1.6.4
Android Webkit 3.1closeAndroid 3.1HTCPG09410Tabletyesyescloseclose0.065 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 13:38:00 | by ThaDafinser