User agent detail

UCWEB/2.0 (Linux; U; Adr LENOVO A10; id; LENOVO_A10) U2/1.0.0 UCBrowser/8.6.0.318 U2/1.0.0 Ponsel
GeneralDeviceBot
ProviderBrowserEngineOSBrandModelTypeIs mobileIs touchIs botNameTypeParse timeActions
Source result (test suite)
ua-parser/uap-core
vendor/thadafinser/uap-core/tests/test_device.yaml
LenovoA10 Detail
Providers
BrowscapPhp
6012
UC Browser 8.6U2 Android Mobile Phoneyesyes0.01401 Detail
DonatjUAParser
v0.5.0
UCWEB 2.0closeclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
NeutrinoApiCom
UC Browser closeLinux SonyEricssonE15imobile-browseryescloseclose0.207 Detail
PiwikDeviceDetector
3.5.2
UC Browser 8.6 GNU/Linux LenovoA10smartphoneyes0.005 Detail
SinergiBrowserDetector
6.0.0
closeLinux closecloseclosecloseclose0.001 Detail
UAParser
v3.4.5
UC Browser 8.6.0closeLinux LenovoA10closeclosecloseclose0.001 Detail
UserAgentStringCom
UC Browser 2.0closeLinux closecloseclosecloseclose0.081 Detail
WhatIsMyBrowserCom
UC Browser 8.6.0.318 Linux closeclosecloseclosecloseclose0.404 Detail
WhichBrowser
2.0.10
UC Browser 8.6Gecko LenovoA10; id; LENOVO A10) U2mobile:featureyescloseclose0.012 Detail
Woothee
v1.2.0
closeclosecloseclosepcclosecloseclose0 Detail
Wurfl
1.6.4
UC Browser 8closeAndroid 4.0Feature Phoneyescloseclose0.02001 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 13:41:42 | by ThaDafinser