User agent detail

Mozilla/5.0 (Linux; Android 4.1.2; LG-F160K Build/JZO54K) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/40.0.2214.109 Mobile Safari/537.36
GeneralDeviceBot
ProviderBrowserEngineOSBrandModelTypeIs mobileIs touchIs botNameTypeParse timeActions
Source result (test suite)
browscap/browscap
/tests/fixtures/issues/issue-563.php
Chrome 40.0Android 4.1unknown LGF160KMobile Phoneyesyes Detail
Providers
BrowscapPhp
6012
Chrome 40.0Blink Android 4.1LGF160KMobile Phoneyesyes0.026 Detail
DonatjUAParser
v0.5.0
Chrome 40.0.2214.109closeclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0.001 Detail
NeutrinoApiCom
Chrome Mobile 40.0.2214.109closeAndroid 4.1.2LGF160Kmobile-browseryescloseclose0.26403 Detail
PiwikDeviceDetector
3.5.2
Chrome Mobile 40.0Blink Android 4.1LGF160Ksmartphoneyes0.006 Detail
SinergiBrowserDetector
6.0.0
Chrome 40.0.2214.109closeAndroid 4.1.2closecloseyesclosecloseclose0.001 Detail
UAParser
v3.4.5
Chrome Mobile 40.0.2214closeAndroid 4.1.2LGF160Kcloseclosecloseclose0.001 Detail
UserAgentStringCom
Android Webkit Browser closeAndroid 4.1.2closecloseclosecloseclose0.08401 Detail
WhatIsMyBrowserCom
Chrome 40.0.2214.109WebKit 537.36Android 4.1.2LGLGF160Kcloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0.41204 Detail
WhichBrowser
2.0.10
Chrome 40Blink Android 4.1.2LGOptimus LTE IImobile:smartyescloseclose0.02 Detail
Woothee
v1.2.0
Chrome 40.0.2214.109closeclosecloseclosesmartphoneclosecloseclose0 Detail
Wurfl
1.6.4
Chrome Mobile 40closeAndroid 4.1LGF160KSmartphoneyesyescloseclose0.036 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 13:42:06 | by ThaDafinser