User agent detail

Opera/9.80 (Linux sh4; U; HbbTV/1.1.1 (; INTEK; VT-100 HD+;;;) hdplusSmartTV/1.0 (NETRANGEMMH;) Bee/3.2 CE-HTML/1.0; FXM-U2FsdGVkX1/N3/2AunjF4HAWRQygAcGqj02QZuofQI5yHfuXsLw507L8Q1cbFwrQ-END; en) Presto/2.10.250 Version/11.60
GeneralDeviceBot
ProviderBrowserEngineOSBrandModelTypeIs mobileIs touchIs botNameTypeParse timeActions
Source result (test suite)
ua-parser/uap-core
vendor/thadafinser/uap-core/tests/test_device.yaml
INTEKVT-100 HD+ Detail
Providers
BrowscapPhp
6012
Opera 11.60Presto 2.10Linux Linux DesktopDesktop0.009 Detail
DonatjUAParser
v0.5.0
Opera 11.60closeclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0.001 Detail
NeutrinoApiCom
Opera 11.60closeLinux desktop-browsercloseclose0.19502 Detail
PiwikDeviceDetector
3.5.2
Opera 11.60Presto GNU/Linux IntekVT-100tv0.007 Detail
SinergiBrowserDetector
6.0.0
Opera 11.60closeLinux closecloseclosecloseclose0.001 Detail
UAParser
v3.4.5
HbbTV 1.1.1closeLinux INTEKVT-100 HD+closeclosecloseclose0.004 Detail
UserAgentStringCom
Opera 11.60closeLinux closecloseclosecloseclose0.07501 Detail
WhatIsMyBrowserCom
Opera 11.60Presto 2.10.250Linux closeclosecloseclosecloseclose0.40404 Detail
WhichBrowser
2.0.10
Opera Devices 3.2Presto 2.10.250 INTEKVT-100 HD+televisioncloseclose0.006 Detail
Woothee
v1.2.0
Opera 11.60closeclosecloseclosepcclosecloseclose0 Detail
Wurfl
1.6.4
Opera 12.11closeLinux armv7l SmartTVSmart-TVcloseclose0.012 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 13:28:48 | by ThaDafinser