User agent detail

Opera/9.80 (Linux mips; U; HbbTV/1.1.1 (; Vestel; MB95; 1.0; 1.0; ); en) Presto/2.10.287 Version/12.00 HbbTV/1.1.1 (; CUS:TELEFUNKEN; MB95; 2.1.4; 1.0;) CE-HTML/1.0 NETRANGEMMH iplayerV3

Detected by 8 of 8 providers
As bot detected by 0 of 7

GeneralDeviceBot
ProviderBrowserEngineOSBrandModelTypeIs mobileIs touchIs botNameTypeActions
BrowscapPhp
6011
Opera 12.00Presto 2.12Linux Linux DesktopDesktop Detail
DonatjUAParser
v0.5.0
Opera 12.00closeclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclose Detail
PiwikDeviceDetector
3.5.1
Opera 12.00Presto GNU/Linux TelefunkenMB95tv Detail
SinergiBrowserDetector
6.0.0
Opera 12.00 HbbTV/1.1.1 (; CUS:TELEFUNKEN; MB95; 2.1.4; 1.0;) CE-HTML/1.0 NETRANGEMMH iplayerV3closeLinux closecloseclosecloseclose Detail
UAParser
v3.4.5
HbbTV 1.1.1closeLinux VestelMB95closeclosecloseclose Detail
WhichBrowser
2.0.9
Opera Devices 3.2Presto 2.10.287 VestelMB95televisioncloseclose Detail
Woothee
v1.2.0
Opera 12.00closeclosecloseclosepcclosecloseclose Detail
Wurfl
1.6.4
Opera 12.50closeLinux armv7l SmartTVSmart-TVcloseclose 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 2016-01-26 16:42:33 | by ThaDafinser