User agent detail

UCWEB/2.0 (Linux; U; Opera Mini/7.1.32052/30.3697; ru; HTC_Desire_S) U2/1.0.0 UCBrowser/9.8.0.534 Mobile
GeneralDeviceBot
ProviderBrowserEngineOSBrandModelTypeIs mobileIs touchIs botNameTypeParse timeActions
Source result (test suite)
browscap/browscap
/tests/fixtures/issues/issue-635.php
UC Browser 9.8Android 4.0unknown HTCDesire SMobile Phoneyesyes Detail
Providers
BrowscapPhp
6012
UC Browser 9.8U2 Android 4.0HTCDesire SMobile Phoneyesyes0.006 Detail
DonatjUAParser
v0.5.0
Opera Minicloseclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
NeutrinoApiCom
UC Browser closeLinux HTCWildfiremobile-browseryescloseclose0.20002 Detail
PiwikDeviceDetector
3.5.2
Opera Mini 7.1Presto GNU/Linux HTCDesire Ssmartphoneyes0.004 Detail
SinergiBrowserDetector
6.0.0
Opera Mini 7.1.32052closeLinux closecloseyesclosecloseclose0.001 Detail
UAParser
v3.4.5
Opera Mini 7.1.32052closeLinux HTCDesire Scloseclosecloseclose0.001 Detail
UserAgentStringCom
Opera Mini 7.1.32052closeLinux closecloseclosecloseclose0.09701 Detail
WhatIsMyBrowserCom
UC Browser 9.8.0.534 Linux HTC Desire Scloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0.42704 Detail
WhichBrowser
2.0.10
UC Browser 9.8Gecko HTCDesire Smobile:featureyescloseclose0.012 Detail
Woothee
v1.2.0
Opera closeclosecloseclosepcclosecloseclose0.001 Detail
Wurfl
1.6.4
UC Browser 8closeAndroid 4.0Feature Phoneyescloseclose0.009 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 13:40:08 | by ThaDafinser