User agent detail

Mozilla/5.0 (Linux; Android 4.0.4; Dslide 702 Build/IMM76D) 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
DanewDslide 702 Detail
Providers
BrowscapPhp
6012
Chrome 26.0WebKit Android 4.0Mobile Phoneyesyes0.023 Detail
DonatjUAParser
v0.5.0
Chrome 26.0.1410.58closeclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
NeutrinoApiCom
Chrome 26.0.1410.58closeAndroid 4.0.4desktop-browsercloseclose0.25402 Detail
PiwikDeviceDetector
3.5.2
Chrome 26.0WebKit Android 4.0DanewDSlide 702tabletyes0.003 Detail
SinergiBrowserDetector
6.0.0
Chrome 26.0.1410.58closeAndroid 4.0.4closecloseyesclosecloseclose0 Detail
UAParser
v3.4.5
Chrome 26.0.1410closeAndroid 4.0.4DanewDslide 702closeclosecloseclose0.001 Detail
UserAgentStringCom
Android Webkit Browser closeAndroid 4.0.4closecloseclosecloseclose0.06201 Detail
WhatIsMyBrowserCom
Chrome 26.0.1410.58WebKit 537.31Android 4.0.4closeclosecloseclosecloseclose0.41204 Detail
WhichBrowser
2.0.10
Chrome Dev 26.0.1410.58Webkit 537.31Android 4.0.4DanewDSlide 702tabletyescloseclose0.012 Detail
Woothee
v1.2.0
Chrome 26.0.1410.58closeclosecloseclosesmartphoneclosecloseclose0 Detail
Wurfl
1.6.4
Android Webkit 4.0closeAndroid 4.0Tabletyesyescloseclose0.045 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 13:40:50 | by ThaDafinser