User agent detail

UCWEB/2.0 (Linux; U; Opera Mini/7.1.32052/30.3697; ru; LG-E612) U2/1.0.0 UCBrowser/9.2.0.419 Mobile
GeneralDeviceBot
ProviderBrowserEngineOSBrandModelTypeIs mobileIs touchIs botNameTypeParse timeActions
Source result (test suite)
browscap/browscap
/tests/fixtures/issues/issue-635.php
UC Browser 9.2Android 4.0unknown LGOptimus L5 DualMobile Phoneyesyes Detail
Providers
BrowscapPhp
6012
UC Browser 9.2U2 Android 4.0LGOptimus L5 DualMobile Phoneyesyes0.008 Detail
DonatjUAParser
v0.5.0
Opera Minicloseclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0.001 Detail
NeutrinoApiCom
UC Browser closeLinux mobile-browseryescloseclose0.483 Detail
PiwikDeviceDetector
3.5.2
Opera Mini 7.1Presto GNU/Linux LGE612smartphoneyes0.005 Detail
SinergiBrowserDetector
6.0.0
Opera Mini 7.1.32052closeLinux closecloseyesclosecloseclose0.001 Detail
UAParser
v3.4.5
Opera Mini 7.1.32052closeLinux LGE612closeclosecloseclose0.008 Detail
UserAgentStringCom
Opera Mini 7.1.32052closeLinux closecloseclosecloseclose0.058 Detail
WhatIsMyBrowserCom
UC Browser 9.2.0.419 Linux LGLGE612closeclosecloseclosecloseclose0.414 Detail
WhichBrowser
2.0.10
UC Browser 9.2Gecko LGE612mobile:featureyescloseclose0.01 Detail
Woothee
v1.2.0
Opera closeclosecloseclosepcclosecloseclose0.001 Detail
Wurfl
1.6.4
UC Browser 8closeAndroid 4.0Feature Phoneyescloseclose0.015 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 13:42:59 | by ThaDafinser