User agent detail

Mozilla/5.0 (AAC; Linux; U; ja-JP) (KHTML, like Gecko) InettvBrowser/2.2 (000087;IP07-04;0100;0000)
GeneralDeviceBot
ProviderBrowserEngineOSBrandModelTypeIs mobileIs touchIs botNameTypeParse timeActions
Source result (test suite)
ua-parser/uap-core
vendor/thadafinser/uap-core/tests/test_device.yaml
Generic_InettvIP07-04 Detail
Providers
BrowscapPhp
6012
No result found
DonatjUAParser
v0.5.0
No result found
NeutrinoApiCom
close media-playercloseclose0.191 Detail
PiwikDeviceDetector
3.5.2
GNU/Linux desktop0.007 Detail
SinergiBrowserDetector
6.0.0
Mozilla 5.0closeLinux closecloseclosecloseclose0.001 Detail
UAParser
v3.4.5
closeLinux IP07-04closeclosecloseclose0.01 Detail
UserAgentStringCom
Mozilla closeLinux closecloseclosecloseclose0.084 Detail
WhatIsMyBrowserCom
Internet TV Browser 2.2 Linux closeclosecloseclosecloseclose0.404 Detail
WhichBrowser
2.0.10
HitachiSmart TVtelevisioncloseclose0.004 Detail
Woothee
v1.2.0
InternetTVBrowser closecloseclosecloseapplianceclosecloseclose0 Detail
Wurfl
1.6.4
Opera 12.11closeLinux armv7l SmartTVSmart-TVcloseclose0.011 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 13:27:14 | by ThaDafinser