User agent detail

Opera/9.80 (Linux armv7l; U; NETRANGEMMH;HbbTV/1.1.1;CE-HTML/1.0;Vendor/THOMSON;SW-Version/V8-MT51F01-LF1V325;Cnt/HRV;Lan/swe; NETRANGEMMH;HbbTV/1.1.1;CE-HTML/1.0) Presto/2.12.362 Version/12.11
GeneralDeviceBot
ProviderBrowserEngineOSBrandModelTypeIs mobileIs touchIs botNameTypeParse timeActions
Source result (test suite)
browscap/browscap
/tests/fixtures/issues/issue-650.php
Opera 12.11Linux Smartphone OS unknown2.12 ThomsonLF1V325TV Device Detail
Providers
BrowscapPhp
6012
Opera 12.11Presto 2.12Linux Smartphone OS ThomsonLF1V325TV Device0.012 Detail
DonatjUAParser
v0.5.0
Opera V8closeclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
NeutrinoApiCom
Opera 12.11closeLinux desktop-browsercloseclose0.18802 Detail
PiwikDeviceDetector
3.5.2
Opera 12.11Presto GNU/Linux ThomsonLF1V375tv0.006 Detail
SinergiBrowserDetector
6.0.0
Opera 12.11closeLinux closecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
UAParser
v3.4.5
Opera 12.11closeLinux ThomsonLF1V325closeclosecloseclose0.002 Detail
UserAgentStringCom
Opera 12.11closeLinux closecloseclosecloseclose0.04901 Detail
WhatIsMyBrowserCom
Opera 12.11Presto 2.12.362Linux closeclosecloseclosecloseclose0.40404 Detail
WhichBrowser
2.0.10
Opera Devices 3.4Presto 2.12.362 televisioncloseclose0.007 Detail
Woothee
v1.2.0
Opera 12.11closeclosecloseclosepcclosecloseclose0 Detail
Wurfl
1.6.4
Opera 12.11closeLinux armv7l SmartTVSmart-TVcloseclose0.009 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 13:26:06 | by ThaDafinser