User agent detail

NCSA_Mosaic/2.8 (X11; FreeBSD 5.2.1 i686)
GeneralDeviceBot
ProviderBrowserEngineOSBrandModelTypeIs mobileIs touchIs botNameTypeParse timeActions
Source result (test suite)
ua-parser/uap-core
vendor/thadafinser/uap-core/tests/test_os.yaml
FreeBSD 5.2.1 Detail
Providers
BrowscapPhp
6012
No result found
DonatjUAParser
v0.5.0
NCSA closeclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
NeutrinoApiCom
NCSA Mosaic 2.8closeBSD 5.2.1desktop-browsercloseclose0.27503 Detail
PiwikDeviceDetector
3.5.2
NCSA Mosaic 2.8 FreeBSD 5.2desktop0.01 Detail
SinergiBrowserDetector
6.0.0
closeFreeBSD closecloseclosecloseclose0.001 Detail
UAParser
v3.4.5
NCSA Mosaic 2.8closeFreeBSD 5.2.1closeclosecloseclose0.002 Detail
UserAgentStringCom
NCSA_Mosaic 2.8closeFreeBSD closecloseclosecloseclose0.07101 Detail
WhatIsMyBrowserCom
Mosaic 2.8 FreeBSD closeclosecloseclosecloseclose0.56506 Detail
WhichBrowser
2.0.10
NCSA Mosaic 2.8 FreeBSD 5.2.1desktopcloseclose0.008 Detail
Woothee
v1.2.0
closeclosecloseclosepcclosecloseclose0 Detail
Wurfl
1.6.4
No result found

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 13:26:25 | by ThaDafinser