User agent detail

Opera/9.80 (Linux armv6l; U; NETRANGEMMH;HbbTV/1.1.1;CE-HTML/1.0;THOM LF1V373; en) Presto/2.10.250 Version/11.60
GeneralDeviceBot
ProviderBrowserEngineOSBrandModelTypeIs mobileIs touchIs botNameTypeParse timeActions
Source result (test suite)
browscap/browscap
/tests/fixtures/issues/issue-650.php
Opera 11.60Linux Smartphone OS unknown2.10 ThomsonLF1V373TV Device Detail
Providers
BrowscapPhp
6012
Opera 11.60Presto 2.10Linux Smartphone OS ThomsonLF1V373TV Device0.01 Detail
DonatjUAParser
v0.5.0
Opera 11.60closeclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0.001 Detail
NeutrinoApiCom
Opera 11.60closeLinux desktop-browsercloseclose0.18402 Detail
PiwikDeviceDetector
3.5.2
Opera 11.60Presto GNU/Linux ThomsonLF1V373tv0.004 Detail
SinergiBrowserDetector
6.0.0
Opera 11.60closeLinux closecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
UAParser
v3.4.5
Opera 11.60closeLinux ThomsonLF1V373closeclosecloseclose0.014 Detail
UserAgentStringCom
Opera 11.60closeLinux closecloseclosecloseclose0.05801 Detail
WhatIsMyBrowserCom
Opera 11.60Presto 2.10.250Linux closeclosecloseclosecloseclose0.48205 Detail
WhichBrowser
2.0.10
Opera Devices 3.2Presto 2.10.250 televisioncloseclose0.003 Detail
Woothee
v1.2.0
Opera 11.60closeclosecloseclosepcclosecloseclose0 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 13:26:24 | by ThaDafinser