User agent detail

Mozilla/5.0 (Linux mipsel; U; HbbTV/1.1.1 (; TOSHIBA; DTV_L4363; 7.1.90.30.01.1; a5; ) ; ToshibaTP/2.0.0 (+DRM) ; xx) AppleWebKit/537.4 (KHTML, like Gecko) TOSHIBA-DTV (DTV_L4363; 7.1.90.30.01.1; 2013A; EU)
GeneralDeviceBot
ProviderBrowserEngineOSBrandModelTypeIs mobileIs touchIs botNameTypeParse timeActions
Source result (test suite)
whichbrowser/parser
/tests/data/television/toshiba.yaml
Webkit 537.4ToshibaRegza L4363 Smart TVtelevision Detail
Providers
BrowscapPhp
6012
No result found
DonatjUAParser
v0.5.0
AppleWebKit 537.4closeclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
NeutrinoApiCom
close media-playercloseclose0.203 Detail
PiwikDeviceDetector
3.5.2
GNU/Linux ToshibaLF1V375tv0.005 Detail
SinergiBrowserDetector
6.0.0
Mozilla 5.0closeLinux closecloseclosecloseclose0.001 Detail
UAParser
v3.4.5
HbbTV 1.1.1closeTOSHIBA 2013TOSHIBADTV_L4363closeclosecloseclose0.012 Detail
UserAgentStringCom
Safari closeLinux closecloseclosecloseclose0.061 Detail
WhatIsMyBrowserCom
Mozilla 5.0WebKit 537.4Linux closeclosecloseclosecloseclose0.406 Detail
WhichBrowser
2.0.10
Webkit 537.4 ToshibaRegza L4363 Smart TVtelevisioncloseclose0.003 Detail
Woothee
v1.2.0
closeclosecloseclosepcclosecloseclose0.001 Detail
Wurfl
1.6.4
Opera 12.11closeLinux armv7l SmartTVSmart-TVcloseclose0.01 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 13:25:54 | by ThaDafinser