User agent detail

UCWEB/2.0 (Linux; U; Opera Mini/7.1.32052/30.3697; ru; SHV-E250S) U2/1.0.0 UCBrowser/9.9.0.543 Mobile
GeneralDeviceBot
ProviderBrowserEngineOSBrandModelTypeIs mobileIs touchIs botNameTypeParse timeActions
Source result (test suite)
browscap/browscap
/tests/fixtures/issues/issue-635.php
UC Browser 9.9Android 4.0unknown SamsungGalaxy Note II LTE (Korea SK Telecom)Mobile Phoneyesyes Detail
Providers
BrowscapPhp
6012
UC Browser 9.9U2 Android 4.0SamsungGalaxy Note II LTE (Korea SK Telecom)Mobile Phoneyesyes0.007 Detail
DonatjUAParser
v0.5.0
Opera Minicloseclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
NeutrinoApiCom
UC Browser closeLinux mobile-browseryescloseclose0.27103 Detail
PiwikDeviceDetector
3.5.2
Opera Mini 7.1Presto GNU/Linux SamsungSHV-E250Ssmartphoneyes0.005 Detail
SinergiBrowserDetector
6.0.0
Opera Mini 7.1.32052closeLinux closecloseyesclosecloseclose0 Detail
UAParser
v3.4.5
Opera Mini 7.1.32052closeLinux closeclosecloseclose0.003 Detail
UserAgentStringCom
Opera Mini 7.1.32052closeLinux closecloseclosecloseclose0.16302 Detail
WhatIsMyBrowserCom
UC Browser 9.9.0.543 Linux Samsungcloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0.40904 Detail
WhichBrowser
2.0.10
UC Browser 9.9Gecko Android SamsungGalaxy Note IImobile:smartyescloseclose0.031 Detail
Woothee
v1.2.0
Opera closeclosecloseclosepcclosecloseclose0 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 13:40:37 | by ThaDafinser