User agent detail

Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686 (x86_64); CentOS Linux release 7.1.1503 (Core)) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/33.0.1750.0 Safari/537.36
GeneralDeviceBot
ProviderBrowserEngineOSBrandModelTypeIs mobileIs touchIs botNameTypeParse timeActions
Source result (test suite)
whichbrowser/parser
/tests/data/desktop/os-linux.yaml
Chrome 33CentOS Blink 537.36desktop Detail
Providers
BrowscapPhp
6012
Chrome 33.0Blink Linux Linux DesktopDesktop0.05201 Detail
DonatjUAParser
v0.5.0
Chrome 33.0.1750.0closeclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0.001 Detail
NeutrinoApiCom
Chrome 33.0.1750.0closeLinux desktop-browsercloseclose0.18302 Detail
PiwikDeviceDetector
3.5.2
Chrome 33.0Blink CentOS desktop0.005 Detail
SinergiBrowserDetector
6.0.0
Chrome 33.0.1750.0closeLinux closecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
UAParser
v3.4.5
Chrome 33.0.1750closeCentOS closeclosecloseclose0.014 Detail
UserAgentStringCom
Chrome 33.0.1750.0closeLinux closecloseclosecloseclose0.13201 Detail
WhatIsMyBrowserCom
Chrome 33.0.1750.0WebKit 537.36Linux closeclosecloseclosecloseclose0.40804 Detail
WhichBrowser
2.0.10
Chrome 33Blink CentOS desktopcloseclose0.003 Detail
Woothee
v1.2.0
Chrome 33.0.1750.0closeclosecloseclosepcclosecloseclose0 Detail
Wurfl
1.6.4
Chrome 33.0.1750.152closeLinux i686 Desktopcloseclose0.021 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 13:25:14 | by ThaDafinser