User agent detail

Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Haiku R1 x86) AppleWebKit/538.26 (KHTML, like Gecko) WebPositive/1.2 Safari/538.26
GeneralDeviceBot
ProviderBrowserEngineOSBrandModelTypeIs mobileIs touchIs botNameTypeParse timeActions
Source result (test suite)
whichbrowser/parser
/tests/data/desktop/os-haiku.yaml
WebPositive 1.2Haiku Webkit 538.26desktop Detail
Providers
BrowscapPhp
6012
No result found
DonatjUAParser
v0.5.0
Safari 538.26closeclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
NeutrinoApiCom
Safari 538.26closeMac OS desktop-browsercloseclose0.18302 Detail
PiwikDeviceDetector
3.5.2
WebPositive WebKit Mac desktop0.005 Detail
SinergiBrowserDetector
6.0.0
Safari close closecloseclosecloseclose0.001 Detail
UAParser
v3.4.5
Safari close closeclosecloseclose0.006 Detail
UserAgentStringCom
Safari closeHaiku closecloseclosecloseclose0.06001 Detail
WhatIsMyBrowserCom
Safari WebKit 538.26Mac closeclosecloseclosecloseclose0.42004 Detail
WhichBrowser
2.0.10
WebPositive 1.2Webkit 538.26Haiku desktopcloseclose0.004 Detail
Woothee
v1.2.0
Safari closecloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
Wurfl
1.6.4
Safari 8.0closeFedora Desktopcloseclose0.008 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 13:28:44 | by ThaDafinser