User agent detail

Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; zh_CN) AppleWebKit/534.7 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/7.0 baidubrowser/1.x Safari/534.7
GeneralDeviceBot
ProviderBrowserEngineOSBrandModelTypeIs mobileIs touchIs botNameTypeParse timeActions
Source result (test suite)
ua-parser/uap-core
vendor/thadafinser/uap-core/tests/test_device.yaml
Detail
Providers
BrowscapPhp
6012
Chrome 7.0WebKit Win7 6.1Windows DesktopDesktop0.10801 Detail
DonatjUAParser
v0.5.0
Chrome 7.0closeclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
NeutrinoApiCom
Baidu Browser 1.xcloseWindows 6.1desktop-browsercloseclose0.188 Detail
PiwikDeviceDetector
3.5.2
Baidu Browser 1WebKit Windows 7desktop0.006 Detail
SinergiBrowserDetector
6.0.0
Chrome 7.0closeWindows 7closecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
UAParser
v3.4.5
Baidu Browser 1closeWindows 7 closeclosecloseclose0.002 Detail
UserAgentStringCom
Chrome 7.0closeWindows 7 closecloseclosecloseclose0.064 Detail
WhatIsMyBrowserCom
Chrome 7.0WebKit 534.7Windows Windows NT 6.1closeclosecloseclosecloseclose0.414 Detail
WhichBrowser
2.0.10
Baidu Browser 1Webkit 534.7Windows 7desktopcloseclose0.008 Detail
Woothee
v1.2.0
Chrome 7.0closeclosecloseclosepcclosecloseclose0 Detail
Wurfl
1.6.4
Chrome 7.0closeWindows 7Desktopcloseclose0.06701 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 13:26:57 | by ThaDafinser