User agent detail

Mozilla/5.0 (Linux; Tizen 2.2.0; SC-03F) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/2.2 Chrome/34.0.1847.76 efl-webengine/0.1.1.1 Safari/537.36
GeneralDeviceBot
ProviderBrowserEngineOSBrandModelTypeIs mobileIs touchIs botNameTypeParse timeActions
Source result (test suite)
whichbrowser/parser
/tests/data/mobile/os-tizen.yaml
Tizen 2.2.0Blink 537.36SamsungZeQmobile:smartyes Detail
Providers
BrowscapPhp
6012
Safari WebKit Linux Linux DesktopDesktop0.05 Detail
DonatjUAParser
v0.5.0
Chrome 34.0.1847.76closeclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
NeutrinoApiCom
Chrome 34.0.1847.76closeLinux desktop-browsercloseclose0.19702 Detail
PiwikDeviceDetector
3.5.2
Chrome 34.0Blink Tizen 2.2SuperSonicSC-03Ftabletyes0.008 Detail
SinergiBrowserDetector
6.0.0
Chrome 34.0.1847.76closeLinux closecloseclosecloseclose0.001 Detail
UAParser
v3.4.5
Chrome 34.0.1847closeLinux closeclosecloseclose0.007 Detail
UserAgentStringCom
Chrome 34.0.1847.76closeLinux closecloseclosecloseclose0.09601 Detail
WhatIsMyBrowserCom
Chrome 34.0.1847.76WebKit 537.36Linux closeclosecloseclosecloseclose0.40304 Detail
WhichBrowser
2.0.10
Blink Tizen 2.2.0SamsungZeQmobile:smartyescloseclose0.003 Detail
Woothee
v1.2.0
Chrome 34.0.1847.76closeclosecloseclosepcclosecloseclose0 Detail
Wurfl
1.6.4
Safari 2.2closeLinux TizenFeature Phoneyesyescloseclose0.009 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 13:26:13 | by ThaDafinser