User agent detail

ICE Browser/5.05 (Java 1.4.0; Windows 2000 5.0 x86)
GeneralDeviceBot
ProviderBrowserEngineOSBrandModelTypeIs mobileIs touchIs botNameTypeParse timeActions
Source result (test suite)
ua-parser/uap-core
vendor/thadafinser/uap-core/tests/test_device.yaml
Detail
Providers
BrowscapPhp
6012
yesGeneral CrawlersBot/Crawler0.016 Detail
DonatjUAParser
v0.5.0
ICE closeclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
NeutrinoApiCom
ICE browser 5.05closeWindows 5.0desktop-browsercloseclose0.19202 Detail
PiwikDeviceDetector
3.5.2
Java Windows 2000desktop0.006 Detail
SinergiBrowserDetector
6.0.0
No result found
UAParser
v3.4.5
ICE Browser 5.5closeWindows 2000 closeclosecloseclose0.003 Detail
UserAgentStringCom
close closeclosecloseclosecloseyesJavaCrawler0.07301 Detail
WhatIsMyBrowserCom
Windows Windows NT 5.0closeclosecloseclosecloseclose0.40504 Detail
WhichBrowser
2.0.10
Windows 2000desktopcloseclose0.024 Detail
Woothee
v1.2.0
closeclosecloseclosepcclosecloseclose0 Detail
Wurfl
1.6.4
No result found

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 13:25:28 | by ThaDafinser