User agent detail

Mozilla/4.0 (Windows NT 6.2) AppleWebKit/537.17 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/24.0.1312.70 Safari/537.17
GeneralDeviceBot
ProviderBrowserEngineOSBrandModelTypeIs mobileIs touchIs botNameTypeParse timeActions
Source result (test suite)
browscap/browscap
/tests/fixtures/issues/issue-500.php
yesFake ChromeBot/Crawler Detail
Providers
BrowscapPhp
6012
yesFake ChromeBot/Crawler0.014 Detail
DonatjUAParser
v0.5.0
Chrome 24.0.1312.70closeclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
NeutrinoApiCom
Chrome 24.0.1312.70closeWindows 6.2desktop-browsercloseclose0.21102 Detail
PiwikDeviceDetector
3.5.2
Chrome 24.0WebKit Windows 8desktop0.005 Detail
SinergiBrowserDetector
6.0.0
Chrome 24.0.1312.70closeWindows 8closecloseclosecloseclose0.001 Detail
UAParser
v3.4.5
Chrome 24.0.1312closeWindows 8 closeclosecloseclose0.004 Detail
UserAgentStringCom
Chrome 24.0.1312.70closeWindows 8 closecloseclosecloseclose0.05701 Detail
WhatIsMyBrowserCom
Chrome 24.0.1312.70WebKit 537.17Windows Windows NT 6.2closeclosecloseclosecloseclose0.40904 Detail
WhichBrowser
2.0.10
Chrome 24Webkit 537.17Windows 8desktopcloseclose0.003 Detail
Woothee
v1.2.0
Chrome 24.0.1312.70closeclosecloseclosepcclosecloseclose0 Detail
Wurfl
1.6.4
Chrome 24.0.1312.52closeUnknown Desktopcloseclose0.016 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 13:26:30 | by ThaDafinser