User agent detail

UCWEB/2.0 (Linux; U; Opera Mini/7.1.32052/30.3697; ru; S-TELL_M260) U2/1.0.0 UCBrowser/10.1.2.571 Mobile
GeneralDeviceBot
ProviderBrowserEngineOSBrandModelTypeIs mobileIs touchIs botNameTypeParse timeActions
Source result (test suite)
browscap/browscap
/tests/fixtures/issues/issue-635.php
UC Browser 10.1Android 4.2unknown S-TELLM260Mobile Phoneyesyes Detail
Providers
BrowscapPhp
6012
UC Browser 10.1U2 Android 4.2S-TELLM260Mobile Phoneyesyes0.008 Detail
DonatjUAParser
v0.5.0
Opera Minicloseclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
NeutrinoApiCom
UC Browser closeLinux mobile-browseryescloseclose0.26697 Detail
PiwikDeviceDetector
3.5.2
Opera Mini 7.1Presto GNU/Linux desktop0.013 Detail
SinergiBrowserDetector
6.0.0
Opera Mini 7.1.32052closeLinux closecloseyesclosecloseclose0.001 Detail
UAParser
v3.4.5
Opera Mini 7.1.32052closeLinux closeclosecloseclose0.021 Detail
UserAgentStringCom
Opera Mini 7.1.32052closeLinux closecloseclosecloseclose0.07299 Detail
WhatIsMyBrowserCom
UC Browser 10.1.2.571 Linux closeclosecloseclosecloseclose0.41196 Detail
WhichBrowser
2.0.10
UC Browser 10.1Gecko mobile:featureyescloseclose0.04401 Detail
Woothee
v1.2.0
Opera closeclosecloseclosepcclosecloseclose0.001 Detail
Wurfl
1.6.4
UC Browser 8closeAndroid 4.0Feature Phoneyescloseclose0.012 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 13:38:51 | by ThaDafinser