User agent detail

Mozilla/3.01 (compatible; Netgem/3.6.8; netbox; Linux 2.2)
GeneralDeviceBot
ProviderBrowserEngineOSBrandModelTypeIs mobileIs touchIs botNameTypeParse timeActions
Source result (test suite)
ua-parser/uap-core
vendor/thadafinser/uap-core/tests/test_os.yaml
Linux 2.2 Detail
Providers
BrowscapPhp
6012
Netgem Set Top Box Linux TVTV Device0.014 Detail
DonatjUAParser
v0.5.0
No result found
NeutrinoApiCom
NetBox 3.6.8closeLinux desktop-browsercloseclose0.18402 Detail
PiwikDeviceDetector
3.5.2
GNU/Linux desktop0.014 Detail
SinergiBrowserDetector
6.0.0
Mozilla 3.01closeLinux closecloseclosecloseclose0.001 Detail
UAParser
v3.4.5
closeLinux 2.2closeclosecloseclose0.003 Detail
UserAgentStringCom
No result found
WhatIsMyBrowserCom
Netscape Navigator 3.1 Linux closeclosecloseclosecloseclose0.41004 Detail
WhichBrowser
2.0.10
Linux closeclose0.013 Detail
Woothee
v1.2.0
closeclosecloseclosepcclosecloseclose0.001 Detail
Wurfl
1.6.4
closeLinux Japan Radio CompanyWX330JFeature Phoneyescloseclose0.034 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