User agent detail

Mozilla/5.0 (Linux i686; WOW64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/30.0.1599.114 Safari/537.36 SRAF/3.0 HbbTV/1.1.1 (CHANGHONG; TV55; sw-v1.0;) CE-HTML/1.0 NETRANGEMMH
GeneralDeviceBot
ProviderBrowserEngineOSBrandModelTypeIs mobileIs touchIs botNameTypeParse timeActions
Source result (test suite)
piwik/device-detector
/Tests/fixtures/tv.yml
Chrome 30.0.1599.114GNU/Linux Blink 537.36ChanghongTV55tv Detail
Providers
BrowscapPhp
6012
Chrome 30.0Blink Linux Linux DesktopDesktop0.06701 Detail
DonatjUAParser
v0.5.0
Chrome 30.0.1599.114closeclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0.001 Detail
NeutrinoApiCom
Chrome 30.0.1599.114closeLinux desktop-browsercloseclose0.19002 Detail
PiwikDeviceDetector
3.5.2
Chrome 30.0Blink GNU/Linux ChanghongTV55tv0.007 Detail
SinergiBrowserDetector
6.0.0
Chrome 30.0.1599.114closeLinux closecloseclosecloseclose0.001 Detail
UAParser
v3.4.5
HbbTV 1.1.1closeLinux HbbTVcloseclosecloseclose0.012 Detail
UserAgentStringCom
Chrome 30.0.1599.114closeLinux closecloseclosecloseclose0.06201 Detail
WhatIsMyBrowserCom
Chrome 30.0.1599.114WebKit 537.36Linux closeclosecloseclosecloseclose0.40604 Detail
WhichBrowser
2.0.10
Seraphic Sraf 3.0Blink ChanghongTV55televisioncloseclose0.004 Detail
Woothee
v1.2.0
Chrome 30.0.1599.114closeclosecloseclosepcclosecloseclose0 Detail
Wurfl
1.6.4
Opera 12.11closeLinux armv7l SmartTVSmart-TVcloseclose0.018 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 13:25:44 | by ThaDafinser