User agent detail

Mozilla/5.0 (Linux; Android 3.2; GT-P6211 Build/HTJ85B) AppleWebKit/537.31 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/26.0.1410.58 Safari/537.31 OPR/14.0.1074.57453
GeneralDeviceBot
ProviderBrowserEngineOSBrandModelTypeIs mobileIs touchIs botNameTypeParse timeActions
Source result (test suite)
ua-parser/uap-core
vendor/thadafinser/uap-core/tests/test_device.yaml
SamsungGT-P6211 Detail
Providers
BrowscapPhp
6012
Opera Mobile 14.0Blink Android Mobile Phoneyesyes0.12401 Detail
DonatjUAParser
v0.5.0
Opera Next 14.0.1074.57453closeclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
NeutrinoApiCom
Opera Mobile 14.0.1074.57453closeAndroid 3.2SamsungGT-P6211mobile-browseryescloseclose0.266 Detail
PiwikDeviceDetector
3.5.2
Opera 14.0Presto Android 3.2SamsungGT-P6211tabletyes0.007 Detail
SinergiBrowserDetector
6.0.0
Opera 14.0.1074.57453closeAndroid 3.2closecloseyesclosecloseclose0.001 Detail
UAParser
v3.4.5
Opera 14.0.1074closeAndroid 3.2SamsungGT-P6211closeclosecloseclose0.005 Detail
UserAgentStringCom
Android Webkit Browser closeAndroid 3.2closecloseclosecloseclose0.064 Detail
WhatIsMyBrowserCom
Opera 14.0.1074.57453WebKit 537.31Android 3.2Samsungcloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0.408 Detail
WhichBrowser
2.0.10
Opera 14.0Webkit 537.31Android 3.2SamsungGalaxy Tab 7.0 Plus Ntabletyescloseclose0.029 Detail
Woothee
v1.2.0
Opera 14.0.1074.57453closeclosecloseclosesmartphoneclosecloseclose0.001 Detail
Wurfl
1.6.4
Opera 14closeAndroid 3.2SamsungGT-P6211Tabletyesyescloseclose0.10001 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 13:43:05 | by ThaDafinser