User agent detail

Opera/9.80 (Linux mips; ) Presto/2.12.407 Version/12.51 MB90/3.3.8.e (SHARP, Si2156LG32, wired) HbbTV/1.1.1 (; CUS:SHARP; MB90; 3.3.8.e; 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 Linux Linux DesktopDesktop Detail
DonatjUAParser
v0.5.0
Opera 12.51closeclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclose Detail
PiwikDeviceDetector
3.5.1
Opera 12.51Presto GNU/Linux SharpSi2156LG32tv Detail
SinergiBrowserDetector
6.0.0
Opera 12.51 MB90/3.3.8.e (SHARP, Si2156LG32, wired) HbbTV/1.1.1 (; CUS:SHARP; MB90; 3.3.8.e; 1.0;) CE-HTML/1.0 NETRANGEMMH iplayerV3closeLinux closecloseclosecloseclose Detail
UAParser
v3.4.5
HbbTV 1.1.1closeLinux SHARPMB90closeclosecloseclose Detail
WhichBrowser
2.0.9
Opera Devices 3.4Presto 2.12.407 SharpMB90 Smart TVtelevisioncloseclose Detail
Woothee
v1.2.0
Opera 12.51closeclosecloseclosepcclosecloseclose 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 16:40:45 | by ThaDafinser