User agent detail

Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64) AppleWebKit/537.21 (KHTML, like Gecko) QupZilla/1.8.6 Safari/537.21
GeneralDeviceBot
ProviderBrowserEngineOSBrandModelTypeIs mobileIs touchIs botNameTypeParse timeActions
Source result (test suite)
browscap/browscap
/tests/fixtures/issues/issue-712.php
QupZilla 1.8Win7 6.1unknown unknownWindows DesktopDesktop Detail
Providers
BrowscapPhp
6012
QupZilla 1.8WebKit Win7 6.1Windows DesktopDesktop0.09701 Detail
DonatjUAParser
v0.5.0
Safari 537.21closeclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
NeutrinoApiCom
QupZilla 1.8.6closeWindows 6.1desktop-browsercloseclose0.19402 Detail
PiwikDeviceDetector
3.5.2
Safari WebKit Windows 7desktop0.007 Detail
SinergiBrowserDetector
6.0.0
Safari closeWindows 7closecloseclosecloseclose0.001 Detail
UAParser
v3.4.5
QupZilla 1.8.6closeWindows 7 closeclosecloseclose0.004 Detail
UserAgentStringCom
Safari closeWindows 7 closecloseclosecloseclose0.05201 Detail
WhatIsMyBrowserCom
QupZilla 1.8.6WebKit 537.21Windows Windows NT 6.1closeclosecloseclosecloseclose0.40804 Detail
WhichBrowser
2.0.10
QupZilla 1.8.6Webkit 537.21Windows 7desktopcloseclose0.004 Detail
Woothee
v1.2.0
Safari closeclosecloseclosepcclosecloseclose0 Detail
Wurfl
1.6.4
Safari 8.0closeFedora Desktopcloseclose0.01 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 13:27:32 | by ThaDafinser