User agent detail

Mozilla/5.0 (Linux; Android 4.2.2; ARNOVA 90 G4 Build/JDQ39) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/31.0.1650.57 Safari/537.36 OPR/18.0.1290.66961
GeneralDeviceBot
ProviderBrowserEngineOSBrandModelTypeIs mobileIs touchIs botNameTypeParse timeActions
Source result (test suite)
ua-parser/uap-core
vendor/thadafinser/uap-core/tests/test_device.yaml
Arnova90 G4 Detail
Providers
BrowscapPhp
6012
Opera Mobile 18.0Blink Android 4.2Mobile Phoneyesyes0.035 Detail
DonatjUAParser
v0.5.0
Opera Next 18.0.1290.66961closeclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0.001 Detail
NeutrinoApiCom
Opera Mobile 18.0.1290.66961closeAndroid 4.2.2Arnova90 G4mobile-browseryescloseclose0.26103 Detail
PiwikDeviceDetector
3.5.2
Opera 18.0Blink Android 4.2Arnova90 G4tabletyes0.004 Detail
SinergiBrowserDetector
6.0.0
Opera 18.0.1290.66961closeAndroid 4.2.2closecloseyesclosecloseclose0.001 Detail
UAParser
v3.4.5
Opera 18.0.1290closeAndroid 4.2.2Arnova90 G4closeclosecloseclose0.001 Detail
UserAgentStringCom
Android Webkit Browser closeAndroid 4.2.2closecloseclosecloseclose0.05301 Detail
WhatIsMyBrowserCom
Opera 18.0.1290.66961WebKit 537.36Android 4.2.2closeclosecloseclosecloseclose0.40804 Detail
WhichBrowser
2.0.10
Opera 18.0Blink Android 4.2.2ArchosArnova 90 G4tabletyescloseclose0.009 Detail
Woothee
v1.2.0
Opera 18.0.1290.66961closeclosecloseclosesmartphoneclosecloseclose0 Detail
Wurfl
1.6.4
Android Webkit 4.2closeAndroid 4.2Arnova90 G4Tabletyesyescloseclose0.084 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 13:38:33 | by ThaDafinser