User agent detail

LENOVO-A210/S015 Nucleus/1.15 MTK/53 Release/09.01.2011 Browser/Obigo03C
GeneralDeviceBot
ProviderBrowserEngineOSBrandModelTypeIs mobileIs touchIs botNameTypeParse timeActions
Source result (test suite)
ua-parser/uap-core
vendor/thadafinser/uap-core/tests/test_device.yaml
LenovoA210 Detail
Providers
BrowscapPhp
6012
Teleca-Obigo JAVA Mobile Phoneyes0.02701 Detail
DonatjUAParser
v0.5.0
LENOVO-A210 S015closeclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0.001 Detail
NeutrinoApiCom
Obigo 3close LenovoA210mobile-browseryescloseclose0.193 Detail
PiwikDeviceDetector
3.5.2
Obigo MTK / Nucleus 1.15LenovoA210smartphoneyes0.005 Detail
SinergiBrowserDetector
6.0.0
No result found
UAParser
v3.4.5
Obigo 3close LenovoA210closeclosecloseclose0.006 Detail
UserAgentStringCom
No result found
WhatIsMyBrowserCom
Obigo Browser closeclosecloseclosecloseclose0.416 Detail
WhichBrowser
2.0.10
Obigo 3C LenovoA210mobile:featureyescloseclose0.012 Detail
Woothee
v1.2.0
No result found
Wurfl
1.6.4
Teleca Obigo Q05Aclose Feature Phoneyescloseclose0.01601 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 13:41:04 | by ThaDafinser