User agent detail

Mozilla/5.0 (Linux; Android 4.2.2; X-pad LITE 7.1 (revision 1) Build/JDQ39) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/36.0.1985.135 Safari/537.36
GeneralDeviceBot
ProviderBrowserEngineOSBrandModelTypeIs mobileIs touchIs botNameTypeParse timeActions
Source result (test suite)
browscap/browscap
/tests/fixtures/issues/issue-563.php
Chrome 36.0Android 4.2unknown TeXetX-pad LITE 7.1Tabletyesyes Detail
Providers
BrowscapPhp
6012
Chrome 36.0Blink Android 4.2TeXetX-pad LITE 7.1Tabletyesyes0.022 Detail
DonatjUAParser
v0.5.0
Chrome 36.0.1985.135closeclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0.001 Detail
NeutrinoApiCom
Chrome 36.0.1985.135closeAndroid 4.2.2desktop-browsercloseclose0.279 Detail
PiwikDeviceDetector
3.5.2
Chrome 36.0Blink Android 4.2tabletyes0.005 Detail
SinergiBrowserDetector
6.0.0
Chrome 36.0.1985.135closeAndroid 4.2.2closecloseyesclosecloseclose0.001 Detail
UAParser
v3.4.5
Chrome 36.0.1985closeAndroid 4.2.2X-pad LITE 7.1 (revision 1)closeclosecloseclose0.015 Detail
UserAgentStringCom
Android Webkit Browser closeAndroid 4.2.2closecloseclosecloseclose0.06 Detail
WhatIsMyBrowserCom
Chrome 36.0.1985.135WebKit 537.36Android 4.2.2closeclosecloseclosecloseclose0.415 Detail
WhichBrowser
2.0.10
Chrome 36Blink Android 4.2.2X-pad LITE 7.1 (revision 1)tabletyescloseclose0.093 Detail
Woothee
v1.2.0
Chrome 36.0.1985.135closeclosecloseclosesmartphoneclosecloseclose0 Detail
Wurfl
1.6.4
Chrome Mobile 42closeAndroid 4.2Tabletyesyescloseclose0.029 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 13:43:10 | by ThaDafinser