User agent detail

Mozilla/5.0 (Linux; Android 4.0.4; TOUCAN Stick 3D mk2 Build/IMM76D) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/36.0.1985.36 Safari/537.36
GeneralDeviceBot
ProviderBrowserEngineOSBrandModelTypeIs mobileIs touchIs botNameTypeParse timeActions
Source result (test suite)
browscap/browscap
/tests/fixtures/issues/issue-635.php
Chrome 36.0Android 4.0unknown iconBITTOUCAN Stick 3D mk2TV Device Detail
Providers
BrowscapPhp
6012
Chrome 36.0Blink Android 4.0iconBITTOUCAN Stick 3D mk2TV Device0.013 Detail
DonatjUAParser
v0.5.0
Chrome 36.0.1985.36closeclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
NeutrinoApiCom
Chrome 36.0.1985.36closeAndroid 4.0.4desktop-browsercloseclose0.291 Detail
PiwikDeviceDetector
3.5.2
Chrome 36.0Blink Android 4.0Sony Ericssonmk2smartphoneyes0.004 Detail
SinergiBrowserDetector
6.0.0
Chrome 36.0.1985.36closeAndroid 4.0.4closecloseyesclosecloseclose0.001 Detail
UAParser
v3.4.5
Chrome 36.0.1985closeAndroid 4.0.4TOUCAN Stick 3D mk2closeclosecloseclose0.006 Detail
UserAgentStringCom
Android Webkit Browser closeAndroid 4.0.4closecloseclosecloseclose0.111 Detail
WhatIsMyBrowserCom
Chrome 36.0.1985.36WebKit 537.36Android 4.0.4closeclosecloseclosecloseclose0.414 Detail
WhichBrowser
2.0.10
Chrome 36Blink Android 4.0.4TOUCAN Stick 3D mk2tabletyescloseclose0.09101 Detail
Woothee
v1.2.0
Chrome 36.0.1985.36closeclosecloseclosesmartphoneclosecloseclose0 Detail
Wurfl
1.6.4
Android Webkit 4.0closeAndroid 4.0Tabletyesyescloseclose0.028 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 13:39:16 | by ThaDafinser