User agent detail

Mozilla/5.0 (Linux; Android 4.2.2; Lenovo B8000-F Build/JDQ39) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/28.0.1500.94 Safari/537.36
GeneralDeviceBot
ProviderBrowserEngineOSBrandModelTypeIs mobileIs touchIs botNameTypeParse timeActions
Source result (test suite)
browscap/browscap
/tests/fixtures/issues/issue-523.php
Chrome 28.0Android 4.2unknown LenovoYoga B8000-FTabletyesyes Detail
Providers
BrowscapPhp
6012
Chrome 28.0Blink Android 4.2LenovoYoga B8000-FTabletyesyes0.018 Detail
DonatjUAParser
v0.5.0
Chrome 28.0.1500.94closeclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
NeutrinoApiCom
Chrome 28.0.1500.94closeAndroid 4.2.2desktop-browsercloseclose0.30506 Detail
PiwikDeviceDetector
3.5.2
Chrome 28.0Blink Android 4.2LenovoIdeaTab B8000-Ftabletyes0.005 Detail
SinergiBrowserDetector
6.0.0
Chrome 28.0.1500.94closeAndroid 4.2.2closecloseyesclosecloseclose0.001 Detail
UAParser
v3.4.5
Chrome 28.0.1500closeAndroid 4.2.2LenovoB8000-Fcloseclosecloseclose0.001 Detail
UserAgentStringCom
Android Webkit Browser closeAndroid 4.2.2closecloseclosecloseclose0.10502 Detail
WhatIsMyBrowserCom
Chrome 28.0.1500.94WebKit 537.36Android 4.2.2closeclosecloseclosecloseclose0.41108 Detail
WhichBrowser
2.0.10
Chrome Dev 28.0.1500.94Blink Android 4.2.2LenovoB8000 Yoga Tablet 10tabletyescloseclose0.023 Detail
Woothee
v1.2.0
Chrome 28.0.1500.94closeclosecloseclosesmartphoneclosecloseclose0 Detail
Wurfl
1.6.4
Android Webkit 4.2closeAndroid 4.2LenovoB8000-FTabletyesyescloseclose0.039 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 13:38:01 | by ThaDafinser