User agent detail

JUC(Linux;U;Android4.2.2;Zh_cn;GT-I9060;480*800;)UCWEB7.8.0.95/139/355
GeneralDeviceBot
ProviderBrowserEngineOSBrandModelTypeIs mobileIs touchIs botNameTypeParse timeActions
Source result (test suite)
browscap/browscap
/tests/fixtures/issues/issue-513.php
UC Browser 7.8Android 4.2unknown SamsungGalaxy Grand NeoMobile Phoneyesyes Detail
Providers
BrowscapPhp
6012
UC Browser 7.8WebKit Android 4.2SamsungGalaxy Grand NeoMobile Phoneyesyes0.009 Detail
DonatjUAParser
v0.5.0
JUC closeclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
NeutrinoApiCom
UC Browser closeAndroid 4.2.2GenericAndroid 2.0mobile-browseryescloseclose0.477 Detail
PiwikDeviceDetector
3.5.2
UC Browser 7.8 Android SamsungGALAXY Grand Neophabletyes0.005 Detail
SinergiBrowserDetector
6.0.0
Navigator closeAndroid closecloseyesclosecloseclose0 Detail
UAParser
v3.4.5
UC Browser 7.8.0closeAndroid 4.2.2SamsungGT-I9060closeclosecloseclose0.001 Detail
UserAgentStringCom
UC Browser 7.8.0.95closeAndroid 4.2.2closecloseclosecloseclose0.243 Detail
WhatIsMyBrowserCom
UC Browser 7.8.0.95 Android Samsungcloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0.406 Detail
WhichBrowser
2.0.10
UC Browser 7.8 Android 4.2.2SamsungGalaxy Grand Neomobile:smartyescloseclose0.087 Detail
Woothee
v1.2.0
closeclosecloseclosesmartphoneclosecloseclose0 Detail
Wurfl
1.6.4
closeLinux Feature Phoneyesyescloseclose0.011 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 13:41:45 | by ThaDafinser