User agent detail

Mozilla/5.0 (Linux; Android 4.2.2; CAPTIVA PAD 10.1 Quad FHD 3G Build/JDQ39) AppleWebKit/537.31 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/26.0.1410.58 Safari/537.31
GeneralDeviceBot
ProviderBrowserEngineOSBrandModelTypeIs mobileIs touchIs botNameTypeParse timeActions
Source result (test suite)
ua-parser/uap-core
vendor/thadafinser/uap-core/tests/test_device.yaml
CaptivaPAD 10.1 Quad FHD 3G Detail
Providers
BrowscapPhp
6012
Chrome 26.0WebKit Android 4.2Mobile Phoneyesyes0.064 Detail
DonatjUAParser
v0.5.0
Chrome 26.0.1410.58closeclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
NeutrinoApiCom
Chrome 26.0.1410.58closeAndroid 4.2.2desktop-browsercloseclose0.27303 Detail
PiwikDeviceDetector
3.5.2
Chrome 26.0WebKit Android 4.2CaptivaPad PAD 10.1 Quad FHD 3Gtabletyes0.003 Detail
SinergiBrowserDetector
6.0.0
Chrome 26.0.1410.58closeAndroid 4.2.2closecloseyesclosecloseclose0.001 Detail
UAParser
v3.4.5
Chrome 26.0.1410closeAndroid 4.2.2CaptivaPAD 10.1 Quad FHD 3Gcloseclosecloseclose0.006 Detail
UserAgentStringCom
Android Webkit Browser closeAndroid 4.2.2closecloseclosecloseclose0.046 Detail
WhatIsMyBrowserCom
Chrome 26.0.1410.58WebKit 537.31Android 4.2.2closeclosecloseclosecloseclose0.40404 Detail
WhichBrowser
2.0.10
Chrome Dev 26.0.1410.58Webkit 537.31Android 4.2.2CaptivaPad 10.1 Quad FHDtabletyescloseclose0.011 Detail
Woothee
v1.2.0
Chrome 26.0.1410.58closeclosecloseclosesmartphoneclosecloseclose0 Detail
Wurfl
1.6.4
Chrome Mobile 42closeAndroid 4.2Tabletyesyescloseclose0.049 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 13:40:00 | by ThaDafinser